TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules ash filling not 'Cargo Handling Service' under transportation law</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & ST., BHOPAL Versus MAA SHARDA TRANSPORT</h3> The Tribunal upheld the appellate order, determining that filling ash into bulkers/tankers is ancillary to goods transportation, not a separate 'Cargo ... Demand of service tax - Classification of service - whether filling of ash into bulkers/tankers is a separate activity covered under cargo handling as alleged by the Revenue or it is an activity ancillary to the transportation of goods as claimed by the appellant - First rule of most specific nature of service to fall under specific activity prescribed by law under Section 65A(2)(a) is answer to the question. Looking to the scope of the activity carried out by the respondent as depicted in work order and that was examined by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) we are of the view that factual circumstances of the case does not permit to disagree with the first appellate order - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Interpretation of whether filling of ash into bulkers/tankers constitutes a separate activity falling under 'Cargo Handling Service' or is ancillary to the transportation of goods.Analysis:The Revenue argued that the respondent's activity falls under 'Cargo Handling Service,' supporting the adjudication order. However, the appellate order framed the issue of whether filling ash into bulkers/tankers is a distinct activity under cargo handling or ancillary to goods transportation. The learned Authority examined the parties' agreement and a photograph to determine that the service provided is transportation, not cargo handling. The analysis delved into Section 65A, emphasizing the rule that the most specific nature of service determines the activity under the law. Considering the scope of the respondent's activity as per the work order and the Commissioner's examination, the Tribunal found no grounds to disagree with the appellate order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Additionally, the stay application and cross-objection were also disposed of in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
