https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373157 The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services were rightly classified under Goods Transportation Agency service instead of Cargo Handling Service. The analysis of sample contracts emphasized transportation over handling, leading to the decision that the essential character of the service was transporting coal. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal supported this classification, setting aside previous charges and penalties imposed. The appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief, affirming the correct classification of services as Goods Transportation Agency service. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jan 2019 07:57:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373157 The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services were rightly classified under Goods Transportation Agency service instead of Cargo Handling Service. The analysis of sample contracts emphasized transportation over handling, leading to the decision that the essential character of the service was transporting coal. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal supported this classification, setting aside previous charges and penalties imposed. The appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief, affirming the correct classification of services as Goods Transportation Agency service. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373157