Coal transport held Goods Transport Agency service; service tax under reverse charge on recipient; intra-mine demand set aside

The Tribunal held that the appellant's coal transportation activities, both within and outside the mining area, including shifting and feeding of coal into hoppers, are classifiable as "Goods Transport Agency Services," not "Mining Services." Consequently, service tax liability on such transportation lies on the service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, and the demand relating to transportation within mining was set aside. For the residual confirmed demand of Rs. 15,156/-, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of payment and interest, with penalty on this amount waived. The appeal was partly allowed and disposed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the activities of transportation of coal within and outside the mining area and "shifting and feeding of coal into the hoppers" are classifiable and taxable as "Mining Services" or as "Goods Transport Agency Services" attracting reverse charge on the service recipient.

1.2 How the balance confirmed demand relating to service tax on rental income of Rs. 15,156/-, stated to have been paid, is to be treated regarding verification of payment, interest liability and penalty.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Classification and taxability of coal transportation and related activities

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal examined the scope of "Mining Services" as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994, vis-à-vis the nature of activities undertaken by the assessee.

2.2 The Tribunal considered that transportation of coal is classifiable under "Goods Transport Agency Services" and, under the reverse charge mechanism, the liability to pay service tax thereon lies on the service receiver.

2.3 The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE v. Singh Transporters and on its own earlier decision in Maa Kalika Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, wherein transportation of coal within mines was held to be taxable, if at all, under "Goods Transport Agency Services" with liability under reverse charge on the service recipient.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.4 The Tribunal noted that in an earlier appeal of the same assessee for a prior period, on a periodical show cause notice raising an identical issue, it had already held that the activities of transportation of coal within the mining area and outside the mining area are most appropriately classifiable as "Goods Transport Agency Services" and not as "Mining Services".

2.5 In that earlier decision, the Tribunal had examined the contracts and found that the assessee's activities were mainly transportation of coal, and that such transportation attracts classification under "Goods Transport Agency Services", resulting in service tax liability on the service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism.

2.6 The Tribunal further held in the earlier decision, followed in the present matter, that the activity of "shifting and feeding of coal into the hoppers" is performed inside power plants and, therefore, cannot be categorized as "Mining Service".

2.7 Observing that the current demand arose from a periodical notice on an identical issue for a subsequent period (2013-14) in respect of the same assessee, the Tribunal followed the ratio of its earlier Final Order and applied the same classification and liability conclusions.

Conclusions

2.8 The transportation of coal within the mines and outside the mines is not chargeable to service tax under the category of "Mining Services"; it falls under "Goods Transport Agency Services" with tax liability, if any, on the service recipient under reverse charge.

2.9 The activity of "shifting and feeding of coal into the hoppers" in power plants is not "Mining Service".

2.10 Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the demand of service tax in respect of transportation services within mining and related activities impugned as "Mining Services".

Issue 2 - Treatment of residual rental income demand of Rs. 15,156/-

Interpretation and reasoning

2.11 The assessee did not contest the confirmed demand of Rs. 15,156/- towards service tax on rental income and claimed that this amount had already been paid.

2.12 The Tribunal found it necessary to verify whether the said amount had in fact been discharged and whether any interest was still payable thereon.

2.13 Considering the overall facts, the Tribunal viewed that imposition of penalty on this limited amount was not warranted.

Conclusions

2.14 The matter relating to the confirmed demand of Rs. 15,156/- towards service tax on rental income was remanded to the adjudicating authority solely to verify the assessee's claim of payment.

2.15 If, upon verification, any interest is found payable on the said amount, the adjudicating authority may recover such interest from the assessee.

2.16 The penalty imposed in respect of this amount stands waived.

---