CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPUR Versus MAHAKAUSHAL TRANSPORT CO
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 1109 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 10-8-2018
ST\/55393\/2013-DB – FINAL ORDER NO. 52756\/2018
Service Tax
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical)
\nShri G.R. Singh, AR for the Appellant
\nShri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer C.L. Mahar:
\nBrief facts of the matter are that Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal has filed the appeal before this Tribunal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 200\/BPL\/2012 dated 08\/10\/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal (Appeal). When on the previous occasion this appeal has come for hearing before this Tribunal, the same was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was under the monetary limit for filing appeal before CESTAT. As per the Litigation Policy for filing appeal before CESTAT, High Court and Supreme Court issued by vide CBECs instructions <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ' which are of legal and recurring nature. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n artment that the kind of service rendered by the respondent assessee is a more appropriately classifiable under the category of “Cargo Handling Service” rather than “Transport of Goods by Road Service” and thus an amount of Rs. 1,89,938\/- has been evaded by the respondent assessee. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPUR Versus MAHAKAUSHAL TRANSPORT COService Tax2018 (8) TMI 1109 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 10-8-2018ST\/55393\/2013-DB – FINAL ORDER NO. 52756\/2018Service TaxShri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri G.R. Singh, AR for the Appellant Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER … Continue reading “CGST C.C & C. E-JABALPUR Versus MAHAKAUSHAL TRANSPORT CO”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13331\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. After hearing both the sides, the above mentioned ROM was decided and appeal was restored vide this Tribunal's Final Order No. 50357\/2018 dated 15\/06\/2018.
\n4. The issue before us is to determine the classification of service rendered by respondent assessee M\/s Mahakaushal Transport Company wherein the respondent assessee have been undertaking following works:-
\na. Hiring of backhoe\/pay loader siding including mechanical unloading;
\nb. Hiring of pay-loader for loading or coal wagon at different siding of M\/s Western Coal Ltd; and
\nc. Removal of all types of material by hiring of equipment such as HEMM, tippers, loading, transportation and dumping at specified places.
\n5. We have also perused the salient features of the contract which the respondent assessee has entered with M\/s Western Coal Field, Chhindwara wherein it has been provided that the respondent assessee will undertake the work of loading of coal by Pay Loader and Transportation<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. We have heard both sides and gone through the record of appeal. From the record of the appeal it appears that the matter under consideration is no longer res integra in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur V\/s Singh Transporters 2017 (4) GSTL 3 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the activity undertaken by the assessee of transporting of the coal from the pithead of the mines to railway sidings within the mining area is more appropriately classifiable under service head of Transport of Goods by Road Service. The relevant extract of the above judgment is reproduced here below:-
\n“6. Be that as it may, even if the relied up<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n