Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 20 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax - Cargo Handling Services - Held that:- Mined coal at pit-heads required to be transported to stockyards or crushing sites from the mine area can be certainly considered as cargo. Therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellant clearly falls within the definition of "Cargo Handling Service" as defined in law. - The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Coal Carriers (2011 (2) TMI 1140 - ORISSA HIGH COURT) held that loading of coal into the railway wagons would fall within the definition of "Cargo Handling Service". The Hon'ble High Court also observed that as per the dictionary meaning the goods which are being carried or transported by any means of transportation and has become load of the trucks would also come within the meaning of "cargo" and therefore, the activity was squarely covered by "Cargo Handling Service" as defined in law. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant squarely falls within the scope of "Cargo Handling Service" as defined in law. - same relates to mining of sand from the riverbed and transporting the same to the Western Coalfield's mining area. Sand is a minor mineral and therefore, mining of sand from riverbed comes within the definition of mining service and will not come within the scope of "Cargo Handing Service" as the main activities is of mining and therefore, demand of Service Tax on mining of sand is not sustainable in law. Activity of loading/unloading of coal by engaging tippers would come within the purview of the "Cargo Handling Service" and the appellant would be liable to discharge Service Tax liability accordingly. As regards the mining of sand from the riverbed the said activity would come within the scope of mining service and not under "Cargo Handling Service". Since there was a confusion about the scope of levy, the extended period of time is not invocable in the present case and accordingly, the demand should be restricted to the normal period of limitation. The appellant would be liable to pay interest on the Service Tax demand payable for the normal period of limitation. Since the dispute relates to the classification of service, imposition of penalties are not warranted. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose of quantification of the Service Tax demand for the normal period of limitation and for excluding the sand mining activity undertaken from the scope of Cargo Handling Service. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|