TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E AND S.T. SURAT I VERSUS ARKAY LOGISTICS LTD - 2024 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER dismissedtheCivil Appeal filed by the Revenue Department thereby holding that, primary service of transportation of goods along with ancillary service of handling of goods and related activities would not be taxed as Cargo Handling Service.
Facts:
Arkay Logistics Ltd. (“the Respondent”) filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Ahmedabad against the Order-in-Original dated January 22, 2013 (“the Order”) passed by the Revenue Department (“the Appellant”) wherein the service tax liability was imposed by the Appellant with respect to the handling and transportation of goods by multi-modes, the Respondent provided various services such as loading/unloading/stacking of goods at respective rail or port yard, road transportation from plant to rail/port head, transportation of goods by rail or sea and from destination to M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. (“the Client”) various depots/stock-point/job-workers premises which appeared to be falling within the purview of Cargo Handling Service.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in the case of ARKAY LOGISTICS LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -SURAT-I - 2023 (4) TMI 213 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD vide order dated April 3, 2023(“the Impugned Order”) allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent, thereby stating that, as per the definition of cargo handling service enumerated in Section 65(105)(zr) of the Finance Act¸ 1994, the loading, unloading, handling of cargo for all modes of transport and any other service incidental to freight would be covered within the definition of “cargo handling”. The definition also states that, mere transportation of goods would not be considered as Cargo Handling Service.
Relying upon the judgment of CESTAT Delhi in the case of HIRA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR - 2012 (4) TMI 430 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and judgment of CESTAT Kolkata in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, RANCHI VERSUS M/S HEC LTD. - 2018 (3) TMI 19 - CESTAT KOLKATA stated that, the primary activity carried out by the Appellant involves transportation of goods via road/rail/sea. The activities incidentally even if involves some loading and unloading of goods while carrying out principal activities under the contracts, such incidental activities would not give the entire activity the character of cargo handling services. Therefore, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the aforesaid activity carried out by the Respondent would not fall within the purview of Cargo Handling Service.
Aggrieved by the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether transportation of goods along with ancillary services be taxed as Cargo Handling Service?
Held:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E AND S.T. SURAT I VERSUS ARKAY LOGISTICS LTD - 2024 (4) TMI 60 - SC ORDER dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Appellant and reaffirmed the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
(Author can be reached at [email protected])