https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314112 The dominant issue was whether contracts for movement of goods by road/rail/sea from a manufacturer's premises to depots, job workers, or customers constituted "Cargo Handling Service." Applying the statutory definition, the Tribunal held that cargo handling covers loading/unloading/handling and services incidental to freight, but expressly excludes mere transportation; incidental loading/unloading during transport does not change the essential character of the contract. Consequently, the activity was classifiable as transportation, not cargo handling, and the service tax demand (including sea and rail freight components) was unsustainable and set aside. The Tribunal further held the extended limitation period was not invocable as there was no suppression or wilful misstatement, with records having been maintained and produced; the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314112 The dominant issue was whether contracts for movement of goods by road/rail/sea from a manufacturer's premises to depots, job workers, or customers constituted "Cargo Handling Service." Applying the statutory definition, the Tribunal held that cargo handling covers loading/unloading/handling and services incidental to freight, but expressly excludes mere transportation; incidental loading/unloading during transport does not change the essential character of the contract. Consequently, the activity was classifiable as transportation, not cargo handling, and the service tax demand (including sea and rail freight components) was unsustainable and set aside. The Tribunal further held the extended limitation period was not invocable as there was no suppression or wilful misstatement, with records having been maintained and produced; the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314112