https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345537 The forum allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that their primary activity was transportation, not cargo handling. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Finance Act, 1994, which excludes mere transportation from the definition of Cargo Handling Service. The appellant's involvement in ancillary activities like loading/unloading was considered incidental to their transportation services, as clarified by the Board's circular. The forum emphasized that the essential character of the appellant's service was transportation, leading to the overturning of the tax liability imposed by the department. en-us Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:36:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345537 The forum allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that their primary activity was transportation, not cargo handling. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Finance Act, 1994, which excludes mere transportation from the definition of Cargo Handling Service. The appellant's involvement in ancillary activities like loading/unloading was considered incidental to their transportation services, as clarified by the Board's circular. The forum emphasized that the essential character of the appellant's service was transportation, leading to the overturning of the tax liability imposed by the department. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345537