2025 (5) TMI 1998 - HC - Service Tax

Cargo handling activities within mining services contract cannot be separately taxed under service tax provisions

Commissioner Of Service Tax Kolkata Versus M/s Emta Coal Limited

The Calcutta HC allowed the appeal in part, ruling that cargo handling activities performed as part of a composite mining services contract cannot be ... Remanding the demand for mining services, despite the amount having been accepted - remanding the demand when the amount was paid prior to issuance of SCN, as accepted by the said M/s. EMTA and thus paid - cargo handling service - mining service - HELD THAT:- The learned Tribunal has taken note of its order passed in respect of the site formation service wherein the Tribunal had affirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority dropping the demand in respect of site formation services on the ground that the contract entered by the assessee with third parties was a composite contract and payments were made based upon the quantity of coal which has been raised. It is not in dispute that as per original contract dated 14.3.1997, the assessee was to provide all the services upto loading of coal at railway siding but subsequently by another agreement dated 2.3.2010 it was agreed between the assessee and BECML that all the work of loading and transportation of coal from the colliery pithead stage would be arranged by BECML and the assessee’s work in respect of coal extracted from the mines would be restricted upto stacking of coal at pithead only. Thus, handling and transportation of coal/mineral from pithead to a specified location within the mine/factory or for transportation outside the mine was included. Therefore, it is clear that the activity of handling of goods, including of unloading and loading thereof being part of the mining services to be rendered under the agreements entered into by the assessee cannot be bifurcated under different heads for the purpose of demanding service tax. Identical issue was considered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise –versus- Manoj Kumar [2012 (9) TMI 941 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that the activity of loading, unloading, packing, unpacking, stacking, restacking and shifting of sugar bags from mill floor to godown or from one godown to another godown within the factory is not covered in cargo handling service as there being no activity of loading or unloading for movement outside the factory on public road or ship or aeroplane or trucks for any destination. Conclusion - It has to be necessarily held that the activity of handling of goods including loading and unloading thereof being part of the composite agreement entered into by the assessee with the third parties cannot be bifurcated under different heads for the purpose of demanding service tax. Appeal allowed in part. The core legal questions considered by the Court in this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, primarily revolve around the validity and correctness of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (Tribunal) order in Service Tax Appeal No. 277/2012. The issues are:(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in remanding the demand of Rs. 26,01,36,069/- for Mining Services for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2008, despite the amount having been accepted and paid by the assessee without any record of payment under protest;(ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in remanding the demand of Rs. 26,01,36,069/- which was paid prior to issuance of the Show Cause Notice (SCN);(iii) Whether the Tribunal erred in dropping the demand of Rs. 1,22,64,061/- relating to Cargo Handling Services while remanding the Mining Service demand of Rs. 26,01,36,069/-.Additional ancillary issues emerged from the adjudicating authority's original order concerning various demands relating to Site Formation, Excavation, Earth Moving, Demolition Services, difference reconciliations between Balance Sheet and Service Tax returns, surreptitious mining services, and management consultancy services, but these were either decided in favour of the assessee or not challenged in the present appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Demand of Rs. 26,01,36,069/- for Mining Services (Period: 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2008 and 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010)Legal Framework and Precedents: The Central Excise Act, 1944, and the service tax provisions therein govern the levy and collection of service tax on specified services, including Mining Services. Payment of disputed tax demands prior to issuance of SCN and the legal consequences thereof are relevant considerations. The principles regarding acceptance of demand and payment without protest are well settled in tax jurisprudence.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the Tribunal had remanded the demand of Rs. 26,01,36,069/- for fresh consideration, requiring the assessee to provide invoice-wise details and reconciliations to substantiate exemptions or deductions. However, the Court found that the assessee had accepted and paid this demand prior to the SCN, and there was no evidence that such payment was made under protest. The Tribunal failed to consider this critical fact and erred in remanding the matter.Application of Law to Facts: Since the demand was accepted and paid by the assessee without protest, the principle of finality applies, and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication was unwarranted. The Court held that the Tribunal's remand order in respect of this demand was incorrect and set aside the remand, affirming the demand as paid and accepted.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue argued for sustaining the demand and opposed the remand, emphasizing the payment without protest. The assessee's position, as per the record, was that the demand was accepted and paid. The Court sided with the revenue on this point, holding that the Tribunal's remand was unjustified.Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeal filed by the revenue to the extent of the remand of the Rs. 26,01,36,069/- demand and held that the remand was not permissible.2. Demand of Rs. 1,22,64,061/- for Cargo Handling Services (Period: 01.04.2005 to 31.05.2007)Legal Framework and Precedents: Service tax on cargo handling services is governed by the definition of 'cargo handling service' under the relevant service tax law and circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The circular dated 12.11.2007 (F. No. 233/2/2006-CX.4) clarifies the scope of services in the mining sector, including excavation, coal extraction, and handling and transportation of minerals.Precedents from the Allahabad High Court and Jharkhand High Court were considered, which held that activities such as loading, unloading, packing, stacking within the factory or mine premises do not constitute cargo handling service liable to service tax unless connected with movement outside the factory or mine on public roads or other transport modes.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court analyzed the contractual terms between the assessee and third parties, noting that the original contract provided for services up to loading at the railway siding, but subsequent modifications limited the scope to stacking at the pithead, with loading and transportation beyond that arranged by third parties. The CBEC circular clarified that handling and transportation from pithead to specified locations within the mine or factory are part of mining services and not separately taxable as cargo handling.Relying on the precedents, the Court held that the activity of handling goods, including loading and unloading within the mine premises, formed part of the composite mining service contract and could not be bifurcated to impose separate service tax on cargo handling services.Application of Law to Facts: Given the contractual terms and the CBEC circular, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to drop the demand of Rs. 1,22,64,061/- on cargo handling services.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue contended that cargo handling service tax was applicable, but the Court found the contractual and factual matrix, supported by authoritative circulars and judicial precedents, favored the assessee's position.Conclusion: The Court upheld the Tribunal's order dropping the cargo handling service tax demand.3. Other Ancillary IssuesThe Court noted that issues relating to site formation, excavation, earth moving, difference reconciliations, surreptitious mining services, and foreign management consultancy services were either decided in favour of the assessee or not challenged in the present appeal. The Tribunal had remanded some of these issues for detailed verification, but since no challenge was raised, these were not considered in this appeal.Significant Holdings:'The Tribunal has remanded the said demand, namely Rs. 26,01,36,069/-, for fresh consideration. To this extent, the order passed by the Tribunal is incorrect since the assessee had accepted the said demand and they have paid the amount and, therefore, the question of remanding the same to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration could not arise.''The activity of handling of goods including loading and unloading thereof being part of the composite agreement entered into by the assessee with the third parties cannot be bifurcated under different heads for the purpose of demanding service tax.''The Circular issued by the Central Board in C.B.E. & C. Letter F. No. 233/2/2006-CX.4, dated 12.11.2007 came to the aid of the assessee, clarifying that handling and transportation of coal/mineral from pithead to a specified location within the mine/factory or for transportation outside the mines is included within mining services.''The demand of Rs. 1,22,64,061/- in respect of 'Cargo Handling Services' is rightly dropped and the remand of Rs. 26,01,36,069/- on 'Mining Service' is set aside.'The Court's final determinations were:- The remand of the Rs. 26,01,36,069/- demand for Mining Services by the Tribunal was set aside, affirming the revenue's appeal on this point.- The dropping of the demand of Rs. 1,22,64,061/- on Cargo Handling Services by the Tribunal was affirmed, answering the substantial question of law against the revenue.- Other issues not challenged or decided in favour of the assessee were left undisturbed.