Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Raipur vs A. K. Transport on 11 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Service Tax Appeal No. 396 & 409/ 2010
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 23(ST)/RPR-I/2009 dated 17.12.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Raipur (CG)]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, Raipur Appellant
A. K. Transport
Vs.
A. K. Transport, Respondent
CCE, Raipur Appearance:
Dr. S K Sheoram, AR for the Appellants Shri B L Narasimhan, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/ Decision: 11.08.2016 FINAL ORDER NO . 53114-53115 /2016 Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
Both the appeals i.e. one filed by the assessee and other by Revenue are being disposed of by common order as they arise out of the same order passed by the lower authority.
2. As per facts on record, the appellants M/s. A K Transport entered into a contract with M/s. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. for transportation of the mine coal from pit head to railway siding within the mining area. By considering the said services to be goods transport agency service, the recipient of the service i.e. M/s. SECL discharged the Service tax liability in respect of the same on reverse charge basis.
3. However, Revenue entertained a view that such services would fall under the cargo handling, and accordingly, the notice was issued to assessee proposing confirmation of demand of duty, by invoking the longer period of limitation. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority. On appeal thereagainst Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit of time bar but upheld the order on merits and directed the lower authorities to re-quantify the demand falling within limitation. He also allowed the appellants plea on the ground of entire consideration to be treated as cum-tax value.
4. Hence the present appeals by assessee as also by Revenue.
5. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri B L Narasimhan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Dr. S K Sheoram, learned DR appearing for the Revenue and after going through the impugned orders, we find that the dispute between the assessees and the Revenue lies on the legal issue i.e. whether the services of transporting the goods from pit head to Railway siding within the mining area would amount to providing GTA services, as pleaded by the learned advocate or whether the same has to be held as falling under the head of cargo handling so as to fix the tax liability on the assessee.
6. At this stage, without going into the detailed arguments put forth by both the sides, we find that the said disputed issue was subject matter of earlier decisions of the Tribunal in respect of other appellants, similarly situate. In the case of M/s. V N Transport vs. CCE, Raipur [2016-TIOL-1510-CESTAT-Del], the appellant had entered into a identical contract with M/s. SECL and as GTA service recipient was discharging its service tax liability on reverse charge basis. The Revenue in that case, had raised the demand by treating the services as mining services. The Tribunal after taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case including the Tribunals decision in the case of Arjuna Carriers PVt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Raipur vide Final Order No. 54920/2014-Cu(DB) dated 20.11.2014, held as under:
6. In the light of the above decision, we find that the issue as to whether the appellants activity of transporting the goods from pit head to Railway Siding within the mines would fall under mining services, as contended by Revenue or would be categorized under goods transport services as claimed by the appellants stand settled, in respect of identical agreements entered into between various assessees with M/s. South East Coal Fields Ltd. As such, by following the same, we find no merits in the Revenues stand. The impugned orders are set aside and all the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Inasmuch as in other case of identical situate appellants involving the same issue and identical contract with M/s. SECL, the Tribunal had held that the activities of the assessee would amount to providing services, falling under goods transport agency services, by following the said decision, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief.
7. In as much as the assessees appeal has been allowed on merits, the Revenues appeal, which is against that part of the order-in-appeal vide which benefit of time bar and cum-duty price has been extended to the assessee is required to be rejected. We order accordingly.
8. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
(operative part of the order pronounced in the open court ) ( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial) ( V Padmanabhan) Member(Technical) ss 2