2018 (7) TMI 1786 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – Classification of Services – Composite contract – respondents were engaged in transport of coal within the mining area and loading and unloading were ancillary to the same – GTA Services or mining services? – CBEC’s Circular No.186/5/2015-ST dated 05.10.2015 – Held that:- The Revenue could not satisfactorily establish that the transactions in the present appeal are not covered by the said clarification dated 05.10.2015 issued by CBEC. Further, Revenue did not contradict the finding of the original authority that same service has been subjected to payment of service tax treating the same as GTA Service – Appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – ST/Stay/70051/2018 IN APPEAL No.ST/70066/2018-CU[DB] – ST/A/71120/2018-CU[DB] – Dated:- 23-5-2018 – Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Appellant Shri Prashant Shukla, Advocate for Respondent OR
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e, for the financial year 2014-15, a show cause notice dated 19.04.2016 was issued to the respondent wherein they were called upon to show cause as to why the above referred activity should not be classified as Cargo Handling Service and why Service Tax of ₹ 2,25,37,368/- should not be demanded from them under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. The respondent submitted before the original authority that they were engaged in providing services of transportation of coal to M/s NCL and M/s IGL and that the terms and conditions of the contract were for providing GTA Services to NCL and IGL and on the said service value NCL and IGL were paying Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism. They further submitted that the activity was shifting of coal from one place to another within the mining area of NCL and the service included transportation of coal in contractor‟s tipping trucks from the coal stockyard to Coal Handling Plant situated within the main premises of NCL and therefore,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
isible and it is not a composite contract and therefore adjudicating authority should have levied service tax on loading and unloading part of the contract. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for respondent who has submitted that the respondents were engaged in transport of coal within the mining area and loading and unloading were ancillary to the same and issue was covered by CBEC s Circular No.186/5/2015-ST dated 05.10.2015 wherein it has been clarified that if GTA Service provider is providing certain ancillary services such as loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, transshipment and temporary storage in the course of transport of goods by road then value of such ancillary services should be counted towards GTA Services. He has further submitted that learned Original Authority has relied on said CBEC Circular as one of the grounds for his decision. He has also submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Rungta Projects Ltd. Vs CCE reported at 20
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =