NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Narayan Prasad Gour Vs. CGST, CE & ST, Bhopal - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (30 Oct 2018)

Activity of transporting of coal from pithead of mines to railway siding is classifiable under Transport of Goods by road services

MANU/CE/0495/2018

Service Tax

The Appellants are engaged in providing taxable services under the category of "Goods Transport Agency Services" to Western Coal Field Ltd. during the period January 2009 to March 2011. Show Cause Notices were issued on the ground that, the Appellants were doing loading, transport and unloading of coal from mining under the category of "Cargo Handling Services".

The basic issue for adjudication is that whether the Department is correct in holding that, the service provided by the above mentioned Appellants falls under the category of cargo handling services as defined under Section 65(105)(zr) read with Section 105(23) of the Finance Act, 1994/Act or whether the service tax is correctly been paid by recipient of the service under Goods Transportation Agency service on reverse charge basis.

As per Section 65A(2)(b) of Act, the classification in the case of combined service is to be decided by analyzing the fact as to which service gives essential character to the service being performed. Further as can be seen from the above contract that, the essential character of the service for which contract has been entered by the service provider is that, the service received are for transportation of coal for mining area to the railway siding and the activity of loading/unloading mechanically or otherwise is only incidental to the activity of transportation of the cargo in these cases. The service provided by the Appellants has rightly been classified in the Goods Transportation Agency service.

This issue has already been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their decision in the case of CCE & ST Raipur Vs. Singh Transporters wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, activity undertaken by the Assessee of transporting of coal from the pithead of the mines to railway siding is more appropriately classifiable under service head of Transport of Goods by road services. There is no merit in the impugned order, the same is set-aside and the appeal is allowed.

Relevant : CCE & ST Raipur Vs. Singh Transporters [MANU/SC/1177/2017: (2017 (4) GSTL 3 (SC)]

Tags : GOODS   TRANSPORTATION   SERVICES   CATEGORY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved