TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Services". 2.1 The appellant is registered under the Finance Act, 1994 for rendering "Cargo Handling Services" defined U/s 65(23) read with Section 65 (105)(zr) and Section 66 of the Act. 2.2 The appellant was awarded Work Order dated 01-04-2009 by M/s Annapurna Enterprises against separate rate for; (i) Local transportation of Iron ore; (ii) Loading of wagon; 2.3 The appellant was awarded another Work Order dated 01-04-2008 by M/s Thriveni Earthmovers (P) Ltd., against separate rate for; (i) Local transportation of Iron ore; (ii) Loading of wagon; 2.4 The appellant states that the activities of Wagon Loading and Transportation are separate and distinct hence separate rate/contract are issued by the client and the Appellant has raised separate Bills/charged separately in the bills for said two activities. 2.5 On the "wagon loading" they have paid service tax under the category of "Cargo Handling Services" and there is no dispute on this point. 2.6 The appellant has not collected and paid service tax on the "local transportation" activities under the bonafide belief that the said activity is most appropriately classifiable under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Jain Carrying Corporation Vs. CCE reported in 2014-12TMI-506-CESTAT New Delhi (Para 9) which is affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015 (39) S.T.R. J370 (S.C.). 4. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue, has justified the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s S.K. Mineral Handling Private Limited Vs. CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar II vide Final Order No.75791-75792/2021 dated 17th September, 2021, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : "13. We find that the issue is no more res integra in view of the Tribunal's decision in the Appellant's own case reported as S.K. Mineral Handling Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, C & ST, BBSR-II [2019TIOL-3514- CESTAT-KOL], wherein it was held as under:- "2. The facts of the case in brief are that during the period under dispute i.e. January, 2005 to December, 2005 the appellant executed composite activity of local transportation of Iron Ore from mines dump yard to the Rail Track Heads/Railway Siding upto lead of ½ km in Automated Tipping Trucks (goods carriage), with incidental lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndling Services. The Learned Advocate submits that they are transporter and not Cargo Handling Agents and to attract the levy unless the twin test of handling of "cargo" by a "Cargo Handling Agent" are not satisfied, no tax can be demanded by implication and without clear authority of law. In the instant case it is nobody's case that the appellant is a Cargo Handling Agent. The Learned Counsel further relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Raj Coal Carriers P. Ltd. v. CCE vide Order dated 24-4-2019 bearing No. FO/75464/2019 in Appeal No. ST/158/2009, M/s. Lakhanpur Coal Carriers v. CCE vide Order dated 24-4-2019 bearing No. FO/75466/2019 in Appeal No. ST/159/2009 and Khanduja Coal Transport Company v. CGST reported in 2019-TIOL-1018-CESTAT-DEL to contend that transportation for short distance cannot be taxed under the category of Cargo Handling Services but as transport services. The Learned Advocate further relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Singh Transporters reported in 2017-TIOL-249- SC-ST to contend that transportation for short distance is taxable as transportation service. The Learned Counsel also contended that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd according to the appellant, the invoices had been issued on this basis only. Since, the work orders prescribe separate rates for tipper loading that is loading of the coal/mineral ore into the tipper trucks, its transportation up to the railway siding and unloading of the coal/mineral ore into the railway wagons, the appellant's contracts with their clients has to be treated as separate contracts for transportation, loading and unloading of coal/mineral ores, though under one instrument. The coal/mineral ore loaded by the appellant at the coal/mineral ore heaps and thereafter unloaded into the wagons was meant for transportation to its destinations by railways and, therefore, the same would have to be treated as 'cargo' and its loading into the tipper trucks and thereafter unloading into the railway wagons would have to be treated as cargo handling service. Hon'ble Orissa High Court in para 22 of its judgment in the case of Coal Carriers v. CCE & CUS & ST, Bhubaneswar (supra) has observed that pre-transportation activities like packing/loading and post transportation activities like un-loading, un-packing are covered by cargo handling service and that cargo handling service is a....