TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity does not involve any service in relation to mining of mineral as contemplated under section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court also held that the definition of mines has no apparent nexus with the activity undertaken under the service rendered. It would be seen that the Supreme Court categorically held that the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the head transportation of goods by road service . The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in holding that the appellant had not undertaken the activity of mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007. The Commissioner (Appeal) is also justified in holding that these activities undertaken by the appellant prior to 01.06.2007 would not fall under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld fall within the taxable service defined under section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court held that the activity would appropriately be classified under the head transport of goods by road service and the activity does not involve any service in relation to mining of mineral as contemplated under section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court also held that the definition of mines has no apparent nexus with the activity undertaken under the service rendered. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under: 3. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the goods i.e. coal transported by the respondent Singh Transporters from the pitheads to the railway sidings would fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant had not undertaken the activity of mining service w.e.f. 01.06.2007. 6. The Commissioner (Appeal) is also justified in holding that these activities undertaken by the appellant prior to 01.06.2007 would not fall under the category of cargo handling service . This is for the reason that the Supreme Court categorically held that the activity undertaken by the appellant would fall under the heading transport of goods by road service . The appellant had, therefore, not provided cargo handling service prior to 01.06.2007 under section 65(23) of the Finance Act. 7. The impugned order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, does not call for any interference. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. ( Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
