TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided transportation of Coal including incidental loading/unloading to various sites of ECL (M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd.). The Appellant also provided loading of Coal into Tippers for transportation within the mines and further provided loading of coal into Railway Wagon for outward transportation. 3. The activities of transportation of coal with incidental loading/unloading is provided by the Appellant to ECL, Sonpur Bazari, which involves loading of crushed coal into automated tippers at ground stock inside the mines, its transportation upto 06-07 K.M. then automated unloading without human intervention inside the mines near railway siding and then loading the same into the railway wagon by pay loaders. The rate is composite. No separate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07, demanding Service Tax of Rs. 2,71,55,189/- under the category of Cargo Handling Service for the period from 16-08-2002 to 31-03-2007 along with interest and proposing penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78. Under Para 6 of the show cause notice at Page 96, out of total service tax demand of Rs. 2,75,60,137/-, Service Tax demand of Rs. 2,47,60,534/- is demanded on transportation of coal with incidental loading/unloading under the category of Cargo Handling Service and the balance Service Tax of Rs. 27,99,603/- is demanded on loading activities i.e. loading at pit head for internal transportation and loading of railway wagon for outward transportation under the category of Cargo Handling Service. 7. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Sr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the mines and loading of coal at the railway siding inside the mines into railway wagons for outward transportation also cannot be classified under the category of Cargo Handling Service. He further submits that in the show cause notice there is no allegations that the Appellant is a cargo handling agent and what is handled is nothing but cargo, hence, in absence of twin requirement of Section 65(23), the tax cannot be levied upon them under the category of Cargo Handling Service, by implication. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DCCE Vs. Sushil & Company reported in 2016 (42) S.T.R. 625 (SC) and in the case of Signode India Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2017 (50) S.T.R. 3 (SC). 8. On the ground of limitation, the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) S.T.R. J304. 11. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 12. We find from the impugned Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner that the Service Tax demand of Rs. 2,47,60,534/- on transportation with incidental loading/unloading is upheld mainly on the ground that the contracts are not for "mere transportation of goods", hence, it is covered under the category of Cargo Handling Services and since, there is no separate rates provided for transportation, loading and unloading activities, the Appellant is liable to pay service tax on the gross amount charged as clarified by the Board vide Circular No.B11/1/2002-TRU dated 01-08-2002. 13. In respect of the Service tax demand of Rs. 27,99,603/- on loading activities, it is held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d dominantly for transportation of coal within the mines and hence, cannot be taxed under the category of Cargo Handling Service and accordingly, set aside. 15. We find that the Service Tax demand of Rs. 27,99,603/- is confirmed on two kinds of contracts i.e. contract for hiring of pay loader for loading of Coal into tippers for transportation within the mines and hiring of pay loader for loading of Coal at the Railway Siding for outward transportation. There is no separate quantification of demand in respect of each of them. We find that the activities of hiring of pay loaders for loading of coal at pit head within the mines for internal transportation cannot be classified under the category of Cargo Handling Service as held by the Tribu....