Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Service Tax

Coal Transportation with Incidental Loading Not Cargo Handling Service: CESTAT Delhi

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 12900
Case Name
Karamjeet Singh & Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Karamjeet Singh & Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)

Summary: M/s. Karamjeet Singh & Co. Ltd. challenged the de-novo Order-in-Original dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur, concerning service tax demands raised by the department by classifying its activity as “cargo handling service”. The appellant provided services to M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCL) involving transportation of coal from one location to another, with loading and unloading being part of the transportation activity. The department took the view that because the appellant loaded coal using tippers/dumpers and subsequently unloaded it, the activity fell within the taxable category of cargo handling service. A Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2011 covering 16.08.2002 to 31.12.2008 demanded service tax of Rs.64,48,863/- with interest and proposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, invoking the extended period of limitation. A separate Show Cause Notice dated 16.10.2009 covering January to March 2009 demanded Rs.4,03,937/- with interest under the same category within the normal limitation period. The original demands were confirmed and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld them. On the appellant’s earlier appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter, resulting in the impugned de-novo order.

Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that the essential service was transportation of goods and that loading and unloading were merely incidental. It further submitted that the transportation service was rendered within the mining area and WCL had already discharged service tax under the Goods Transport Agency category on a reverse charge basis. The appellant also argued that the extended-period demand was time-barred because the department was already aware of the nature of its activities and had issued the earlier Show Cause Notice dated 16.10.2009 within the normal limitation period. The Revenue supported the impugned order.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 22,044

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.