https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767461 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's services were classifiable as Goods Transport Agency Service rather than Cargo Handling Services. The tribunal determined that loading, unloading, and packing activities were merely ancillary to the main activity of transportation. Applying the test of most specific description under Section 65A(2)(v), the court found that loading and unloading were performed for transportation purposes, not vice versa. The tribunal relied on Board Circulars and precedents establishing that when transportation is the primary service, ancillary activities fall under GTA classification. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767461 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant's services were classifiable as Goods Transport Agency Service rather than Cargo Handling Services. The tribunal determined that loading, unloading, and packing activities were merely ancillary to the main activity of transportation. Applying the test of most specific description under Section 65A(2)(v), the court found that loading and unloading were performed for transportation purposes, not vice versa. The tribunal relied on Board Circulars and precedents establishing that when transportation is the primary service, ancillary activities fall under GTA classification. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767461