9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty. 2. The appellant is engaged in providing services of "Goods Transport Agency" to M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. WCL within the mining area. Show cause notice was issued as the work order awarded to the appellant by WCL is for the activity of hiring of pay loader & tippers for loading of coal from the bunkers of Naheriya UGM & its transportation after weighment at Naheriya Weighbridge to EDC siding Weighbridge and unloading thereby falling under the category of "Cargo handling Service" as per Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994 The Act and, therefore, leviable to service tax. On adjudication vide order-in-original dated 15.12.2010, the demand of service tax was confirmed. The appeal filed by the appellant before the CESTAT was allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces received by them from the appellant. 5. The issue whether the services provided by the appellant to WCL are taxable under the category of "Cargo Handling Service" or "Transportation of Goods by road service" is no longer-res integra and has been settled in catena of decisions. 6. Ms. Jaya Kumar, learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has very fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the various decisions of this Tribunal and also placed on record a recent decision by this Tribunal in the case of Mirza Hasam Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur 2022 (67) GSTL 469 (Tri.-Del), where the Tribunal relying on the decision in the case of Singh Transporters Vs. Commissioner 2012(27 )STR 488 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur mind to hold that the definition of cargo handling service under the Finance Act, 1994, does not include the kind of activities undertaken by the appellants and hence the same are not chargeable to service tax. We also find that there was no suppression or mis-statement by the appellants regarding the nature of activities undertaken by the appellants and hence the imposition of penalty on them is not at all justified. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential benefit to the appellants." 7. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the primary nature of work awarded to the appellant was transportation as is evident from the valuation of the work, which is attributable mainly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
