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 in favor of Appellant, annuls Service Tax demand on transportation activities.</h1> <h3>M/s. S.K. Mineral Handling Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-II</h3> M/s. S.K. Mineral Handling Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-II - 2020 (38) G. S. T. L. 53 (Tri. - ... Issues:Service Tax demand on local transportation/shifting activities involving loading and unloading in Automated Tipping Trucks.Analysis:The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar, concerning Service Tax demand on activities related to local transportation of Iron Ore using Automated Tipping Trucks. The Appellant executed a composite activity involving transportation from mines dump yard to Railway Siding up to a lead of 1/2 km, including incidental loading and unloading in automated tipping trucks with hydraulic jack facilities. The Department demanded Service Tax amounting to Rs. 18,50,827 on these activities, treating them as 'Shifting' instead of transportation. The show cause notice indicated separate contracts for local transportation and wagon loading activities, with the Appellant having already paid service tax on the latter but not on the former. The Appellant contended that the contracts for wagon loading and local transportation were distinct, and the entire consideration should not be taxed under Cargo Handling Services as per a Board Circular. The Appellant argued against being categorized as a Cargo Handling Agent and cited relevant tribunal and Supreme Court judgments supporting their position. The Respondent supported the impugned Order, asserting that the composite nature of the contract warranted taxation under Cargo Handling Services.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the demand was solely on the local transportation/shifting charges inclusive of loading and unloading activities. The contract primarily involved transportation of goods with incidental loading and unloading, not falling under Cargo Handling Services. The Tribunal disagreed with the reliance on the Circular by the Commissioner (Appeal) and noted that the Appellant was not a Cargo Handling Agent. Consequently, the impugned Order was set aside, and the Appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the Appellant. The decision was pronounced on October 22, 2019, by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 