Tribunal rules in favor of Appellant, annuls Service Tax demand on transportation activities.

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal demanding Service Tax on local transportation/shifting activities involving loading and unloading in Automated Tipping Trucks. The Tribunal ruled that the activities were primarily transportation with incidental loading and unloading, not falling under Cargo Handling Services. The Appellant's contention that the contracts for wagon loading and local transportation were distinct was upheld, and the demand for Service Tax amounting to Rs. 18,50,827 was annulled. The Appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the Appellant on October 22, 2019.

---

---

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.

---