Mining-related loading and unloading is not cargo handling service when it is only incidental to the principal contract.

Where the dominant character of the contract was mining-related work involving movement of limestone and rejects within the mining area, loading and unloading was only incidental and did not amount to cargo handling service. The Tribunal followed its earlier view and the Supreme Court ruling relied on, finding no distinguishing facts to support a different classification. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the relief granted to the assessee was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether loading and unloading of limestone and rejects in the mining area fell within the taxable category of cargo handling service.

Analysis: The activities undertaken under the contract were examined in the light of the dominant character of the work. The contract was found to be primarily connected with mining operations, with movement of limestone and rejects within the mining area and loading or unloading being only incidental to that activity. The issue was already covered by the Tribunal's earlier view and by the Supreme Court decision relied upon, and no distinguishing feature was shown to justify a different conclusion.

Conclusion: The activity did not fall under cargo handling service for the period in question, and the demand could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The department's appeals failed and the order granting relief to the assessee was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dominant character of the contract is mining-related work and loading or unloading is merely incidental to that activity, the service cannot be classified as cargo handling service.

---