TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inance Act, 1994, which are relating to the period 2005. 2.1. Shri M.S. Nagaraja, learned advocate appearing for the assessee-appellant would request for considering the appellant's appeal first since the penalty question in the Revenue's appeal would be consequential. His request was accepted and he was heard. His contentions, briefly, are as under:- i. The assessee is engaged in extraction, processing and export of iron ore; they had exported the entire quantity of iron ore produced/manufactured. ii. They had availed the services of private transports for removal and transportation of iron ore, ore burden from their mines to the plant. For which, they had paid certain amounts towards the same. iii. They had also used the same trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....997(89) ELT 247 (SC). He would also submit that the amount which was paid during the investigation would take the colour of a deposit and hence not a duty or tax and therefore limitation under Section 11B would not apply and in this regard, he would rely on the following decisions:- i. CC Vs. Motorala India Pvt. Ltd. [2006(206) ELT 370 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. Laxmi Board & Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bombay [2007(208) ELT 384 (Tri. Mum.)] 2.4. On merits, learned advocate would submit that they had engaged the services of individual truck owners for transportation of iron ore right from mine head up to the ports for shipment and therefore the same would not be covered under Goods Transport Agency(GTA) and that the individual truck owners were n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Vs. CCE, Raipur [2017(47) STR 93 (Tri. Del.)] v. Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow [2014(34) STR 850 (Tri. Del.)] vi. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kolhapur [2018(10) GSTL 80 (Tri. Mum.)] vii. Bellary Iron Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum [2010(18) STR 406 (Tri. Bang.)] viii. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI [1997(89) ELT 247 (SC)] ix. CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Pricol Ltd. [2015(39) STR 190 (Mad.)] x. CST, Chennai Vs. Wardes Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. [2011(22) STR 274 (Mad.) xi. CC, Bangalore Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006(206) ELT 370 (Tri. Bang.)] xii. Laxmi Board & Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2007(208) ELT 384 (Tri. Mum.)] xiii. CCE, Bangalore Vs. KVR Constructions [2012(26) STR 195 (Kar.)]- Maintai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue / non-maintenance of documents in respect of movement of goods out of the mines and issue of pay slips for movement of goods from mines to railway yard, pay slips were maintained and hence the same would establish that the assessee did issue consignment note. He would refer to Section 65(23), Section 65(50b) and Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, 1994: that GTA under Section 60(50b) would mean any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note by whatever name called; that Rule 4B ibid wherein explanation is given insofar as consignment note is concerned, and from the above he would conclude that a harmonious reading would indicate that the assessee-appellant having issued consignment note ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entions of the learned advocate in this regard. Insofar as the other contentions of the learned advocate that the work order was in a nature of composite contract for both removal and transportation of iron ore and ore burden at specified rates and hence the same would qualify, as understood by the assessee, as cargo handling service. This contention cannot also be accepted. Firstly, for the reason, the predominant service is in relation to the transportation. In this regard, the reliance placed by the authorities in the case of Dalveer Singh Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2008(9) STR 491 (Tri. Del.)] wherein this Tribunal has held that the loading / unloading in the Truck is a part and parcel of the transportation of goods services. 4.3. We also find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. It is apparent that the essential feature of the service is transportation. Loading and unloading are ancillary/intermediate service provided in relation to transportation of goods, and such service would be Goods and Transport Agency Service. It cannot be 'Cargo Handling service' as was found by the Commissioner. 4.4. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner(Appeals) and hence we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Insofar as Revenue's appeal is concerned, we find from the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate that penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 are not automatic and are governed by Section 80 ibid. The adjudicating authority has elaborately discussed and apprecia....