TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- under section 77(2) of the Finance Act was also imposed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the provision of "Goods Transport Agency Service" and "Cargo Handling Services". The Appellant was registered under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, vide Registration bearing No.AAGFB6129FST001 w.e.f. 07-07-2007 in the State of Odisha with Barbil-I Range, Keonjhar Division. The Appellant thereupon surrendered their registration certificate No.AAGFB6129FST001 vide letter dated 17-10-2007, addressed to the Jurisdictional Range Authority at Barbil, Odisha under dated acknowledgement. No services were ever provided under the said Odisha registration during 2014-15. 2.1. The Appellant obtained Centralised Registration bearing No.AAGFB6129FST002 w.e.f. 15-10-2007 from the Asst. Commissioner, Service Tax Division-III, Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata and started paying service tax under the said centralized registration. 2.2. A Show Cause Notice dated 29-09-2020, was issued to the Appellant alleging that as per the ITR/FORM-26AS the Appellant has received a sum of Rs.65,89,91,162/- whereas they have not filed ST-3 return under Registration No.AAG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he liability to pay service tax lay on the service recipient in terms of Sec.68(2) of the Act read with Rule 2(p)(d)(i)(B) of the Service Tax Rules,1994 and in either case the Appellant is not liable to pay service tax. 3.3. The Appellant states that in the instant that case "separate work orders" were awarded by the clients for "Transportation Work" and "Rake Loading/Wagon Loading Work". Accordingly, the Appellant raised "separate Bill" for Transportation Work and Rake Loading/Wagon Loading Work. The Appellant states that on the rake loading/wagon loading activities, they have already discharged service tax under their Centralized Registration No.AAGFB6129FST002 at Kolkata. In the impugned Order, service tax is again demanded on the self same transaction by the Ld. Commissioner amounting to double taxation. The Appellant states that during the period under dispute i.e. 2014-15 under the aforesaid work orders, they provided wagon loading services and transportation services of the value of Rs.11,43,91,359/- and Rs.54,51,68,107/- respectively 3.4. Regarding the demand of service tax of Rs.6,73,01,893/- on the value of Rs.54,51,68,107/-, related to related to transportation con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without consignment falls in the negative list under Section 66D(p), hence, not taxable under the Act. The Appellant relies on the following decision in their support. The Appellant relies on following decision:- (i) Chartered Logistics Ltd. Vs. CCE (2024) 16 Centax 473 (Tri. Ahmd.) (Para 6.5) affirmed by Supreme Court in CCE Vs. Chartered Logistics Ltd. (2024) 16 Centax 474 (S.C) 3.8. The Appellant submits that the finding of the Ld. Commissioner that the Work Orders awarded to them are actually composite contracts and it has been artificially vivisected/bifurcated to bifurcate the composite activities of Cargo Handling Service is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. As per the said finding all contracts with all the service recipient are artificially bifurcated. The Ld. Commissioner failed to appreciate and consider the trade practice where all the service recipient have awarded contract in the same manner which shows prevalent practice in the trade. Under the circumstances no adverse inference can be drawn against them. For the sake of arguments even if the contention of Ld. Commissioner is accepted that the contracts for transportation and loading are artificially bifu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loading, packing/unpacking, transhipment, warehousing etc., which are provided in the course of transportation by road and are not provided as independent activities but are the means for successful provision of the principal service i.e. transportation of goods by road. In such cases the composite services should not be broken into compartments and classified as separate services. Any ancillary/intermediate service provided in relation to transportation of goods and the charges thereof are included in the invoice would form part of Goods Transport Services and not Cargo Handling Services. The Board has issued another Circular No.186/5/2015-ST dated 05-10-2015 as similar likes. Going by the aforesaid Circulars also the case of the department fails in so far as it seeks to classify the purported composite contract of transportation with incidental loading and ancillary services under the category of Cargo Handling Services whereas as per the said circular it is classifiable under GTA Service. The Appellant relies on the following judgments:- (i) Maa Kalika Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE (2023) Centax 273 (Tri. Cal.) (Para 13, 14) (ii) Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... presented before us. 6. Regarding the service tax demand of Rs.1,41,49,414/- confirmed in the impugned order, we find that during the period under dispute, the Appellant had provided the "Rake/Wagon Loading Service" and received Rs.11,43,91,359/-. We find that the Appellant had a Centralized Registration No.AAGFB6129FST002 at Kolkata during that period and discharged service tax on the said value under the said Centralized registration, In the impugned Order, we find that service tax has been demanded again on the self-same transaction by the Ld. Commissioner, under the Registration No.AAGFB6129FST001 with the Rourkela Commissionerate. We find that the said Odisha Registration Certificate was surrendered by the Appellant vide letter dated 17-10-2017. Accordingly, we find that the Appellant has rightly discharged their service tax liability under the Centralized Registration No.AAGFB6129FST002 at Kolkata. However, the Ld. Adjudicating authority has again demanded service tax from the Appellant without taking into account the service tax of Rs.1,41,49,414/-paid by the Appellant under the Centralized Registration. Thus, we find that demanding service tax again on the rake loading/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by them. In the instant case, we find that out of total gross value of Rs.65,95,589,466/- received by the Appellant towards rendering of the composite service of Transportation, value of Rs.54,51,68,107/- (83%) relates to transportation and value of Rs.11,43,91,359/- (17%) relates to loading activity. We have also perused some of the Work Orders executed by the Appellant. For example, in the work order awarded by M/s Essel Mining and Industries Ltd., the rates of transportation is Rs.524/- PMT and the rate of loading is Rs.125/- PMT and if both the work orders are taken together 19% of the rates would constituted rake loading and 81% constitutes transportation. Similar is the case of other service recipient where also the transportation contracts are essential and loading contracts are incidental. In the impugned order under Paragraph 13.2.1 and Paragraph 13.6.7, the Ld. Commissioner has categorically admitted that the transportation is upto 40 K.M. and the loading is only at one single point. Hence, we find that the principal service involved in the instant case is transportation of goods and not rake loading/wagon loading. Thus, we find that the activities of "Transportation S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....C). 7.5. Thus, by applying the principles of essentiality set out under Section 66F, we hold that the purported composite contract would be essentially for transportation and incidentally for rake loading/wagon loading. Accordingly, we hold that the said services cannot be classified under the category of Cargo Handling Services and hence the demand of service tax of Rs.6,73,01,893/- confirmed in the impugned order on the value of Rs.54,51,68,107/-, under the category of Cargo Handling Services is legally not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. 7.6. We also find merit in the submission of the Appellant that the entire demand in the instant case is barred by normal period of limitation. We find that the demand in the instant case relates to the period 2014-15 whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on dated 29-09-2020 i.e. much after the expiry of normal period of limitation of 30 months. The normal period of limitation of 30 months expired on latest by 30-09-2017 whereas the Show Cause Notice is issued on 29-09-2020. In this regard, we find that proceedings against the Appellant has been initiated on the basis of the information available in ITR and Form 26AS. As t....