Login | Register Now | Contact Us   
 

Lok Sabha Polls 2014: BJP Promises GSTAccording to Finance Ministry about 8k Cr Service Tax Evasion Detected During 2013-14 Court rejects bail of Directors of Indore Based Coaching Institute in the case of Evasion of Rs 1.5 Crores of Service TaxExemption from Service Tax on Loading, Unloading, Storage of RiceExcise Duty for Large and Mid-Segment Motor Cars Cut to 20%Service Tax Defaulters will be Prosecuted: Chief Commissioner Visakhapatnam ZoneIndirect tax collection falls short of target in Odisha

Landmark Service Tax Judgment - Cargo Handling Services

Taxable Services - Cargo Handling Services

Case Laws Related

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 1545
  • Service Tax: Services of Cargo Handling but segregated the services into Cargo Handling Services and Transportation Services (GTA services) and availed the benefit of abatement on the GTA services: Scope: There is an evidence which indicate that appellant had charged separately for the loading of timber logs within the port area on to the Trailor or specially designed vehicles and discharged the service tax liability and also discharged the service tax liability on transportation by road on the amount received from the importers. From the invoices issued by the appellant it is seen that for transportation of logs from port area to importer's premises, appellant is indicating the amount separately as transportation charges, on which after receiving payment, appellant discharged the service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism. Further, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R.K. Transport Company Vs. CCE, Raipur - STO 2012 CESTAT 1185 being on the similar issue may also cover the issue in favour of the assessee. The appellant has also made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground of limitation, as the show cause notice dated 02.11.2010 was issued indicating the same services for the same period under GTA services(Para 7).

    Stay granted.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 1242
  • Cargo Handling Service: Demand on deceased father: Son continued the business in the same name and style and never disputed service tax liability: Directions issued for pre deposit.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 1240
  • Business Auxiliary Service: Cargo Handling: Demand: Stay: According to the department, since the goods were cargo, the service falls outside "goods transport" and since the activity involved handling of cargo meant for export, was outside the purview of cargo handling, in view of the exclutionery clause in Section 65 (23): Whether the transportation was of goods meant for export in the containers, requires further examination at the hearing of the appeal: Directions issued for partial pre deposit.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 1032
  • Cargo Handling Service: When the goods are being moved from one port to another port, it is transportation of the goods and this transportation is not incidental to handling of the freight: Not a cargo handling service.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 1261
  • Cargo Handling Service: Demand: Stay: It is undisputed that the said service are rendered within the factory premises and there are various case laws which have settled the law that any movement of goods within the factory premises may not fall under Cargo Handling Services: Appellants have already paid 40 to 45% of service tax confirmed: Pre deposit for balance amounts waived.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 945
  • Cargo Handling Service: Issue settled that If an activity of packing, loading and unloading is done within the factory premises the said service would be out of the purview of Cargo Handling Service.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 795
  • Cargo Handling Service: transportation of materials within the premises of service recipient would not fall within 'cargo handling' service.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 790
  • Cargo Handling Service: Demand: Stay: Activity of collecting waste generated during processing of cotton and selling such waste is done for appellant's own benefit and it is done within the factory, is out of the purview of Cargo Handling Service: Pre deposit waived.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 633
  • Cargo Handling Service: Transportation of Goods by road: Composite service: Department was made aware of the change in the service tax head to Cargo Handling Services by the appellants to their letter dt. 15.11.2009. If that was not acceptable appellant should have been issued show cause notices periodically without invoking the extended period: Pre deposit waived.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 1027
  • Cargo Handling Service: Demand: Stay: Handling of goods within the factory premises and activities such as shifting of unfinished and finished goods in the factory premises does not amount to providing 'cargo handling service': Pre deposit waived.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 727
  • Cargo Handling Service: Board clarified that if Cargo Handling Service and transportation services are rendered and if in the bills raised for the services rendered, transportation is shown separately (on actual basis, verifiable by documentary evidence), the tax would be leviable only on the cargo handling charges. Since the appellant has discharged the Service Tax liability on both these services, the question of leviablity of Service tax whole amount under one taxable service of Cargo handling is not stainable in law.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 357
  • Cargo Handling Service: Assessee received payments as sugar loading contractors in respect of loading, unloading and shifting of sugar bags from the floor of the mill house to the godown; and from one godown to another as desired by the employer; and for movement/handling of the goods: Activity does not fall within the ambit of CHS.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 351
  • Cargo Handling Service: Respondent is engaged in loading, unloading and shifting of sugar bags from floor of mill house to godown, from one godown to another. This activity does not fit in the definition of cargo handling service.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 226
  • Demand: Section 65(23): Contractual activity did not involve onward transportation of the coal unloaded from wagons within the premises of the Kota Thermal Power Plant: Demand set aside.

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 103
  • Cargo Handling Service: Transportation of Goods: Activity of filling of ash into bulkers/tankers: As per Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it is an activity of transportation of goods and not Cargo Handling Service.  

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 85
  • Transportation of Goods: Cargo Handling Service: In any transportation, loading and unloading is incidental and, therefore, the predominant and essential nature of service is transportation and not 'Cargo Handling': Directions issued for partial pre deposit. 

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 41
  • Service Tax: Demand: Stay: GTA and Cargo Handling Service: GTA services service tax liability on appellants as the services were provided to Government bodies: Activity undertaken by the appellant in the instant case relates to loading, unloading of goods, etc. and the said activity comes within the scope of "cargo handling service": Directions issued for partial pre deposit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1098
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Food Passes not input service, it is a perk to the employees: Credit not admissible.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1078
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Food Passes: Not input service for service provider, it is a perk to the employees: Cenvat not admissible.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1131
  • Cenvat credit: Input Service: Canteen services: Amount recovered from the workmen or employees will have to be considered and only proportionate amount of Service Tax attributable to the actual expenses incurred by the appellant shall qualify for availment of CENVAT Credit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1126
  • Cenvat credit: Input Service: Nexus between input service and output service: Contradiction in the Commissioner’s Order: Order stayed.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1100
  • Cenvat credit: Input Service: Appellant is not seeking Cenvat credit of input/ Input services availed by the contractor but the credit of services availed by himself: On the basis of earlier judgment, stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1080
  • Cenvat credit: Input Service credit: credit stands denied to the appellant on the ground that they have availed the same in respect of Service Tax paid by them in their electrical and civil wing of Jodhpur in respect of services provided by them to the other secondary switching areas located at Jaisalmer, Barmer and Naguar which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Jodhpur district: Prima facie case not made out on merit: Directions issued for pre deposit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1118
  • Input Service: Cenvat Credit:  Invoices in the name of Head Office: No dispute about services having been utilized: Prima facie case made out for waiver.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1115
  • Cargo Handling Service: Airport Service: Demand confirmed on differential amount: Balance sheet and reconciliation statement produced by appellants: fact that while the Balance-sheet figures are on accrual basis, the liability to discharge Service Tax is on cash basis not considered: Matter remanded.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1110
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Demand: Stay: Service Tax has been paid on the CHA services are required to facilitate clearance of final products: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1021
  • GTA Service: Cenvat credit of service tax paid for receipt of inputs in the factory: Credit admissible as input service.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 978
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Stay: Service tax paid on petrol by the employees taken as Cenvat credit: Not admissible: Directed to make pre deposit of the same.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1132
  • Cenvat credit: Limitation: There is no time limit prescribed for availing of Cenvat Credit. So long as tax has been paid and the service has been received.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1026
  • Cenvat Credit: Input service: Service tax paid on mobile phone used by Director admissible as credit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1000
  • Cargo Handling: Site formation: Mining Service: The essential character of the work covered by the contract is that of "excavation of gypsum" and the other activities are just incidental to the main activity. Payment is made per metric tonne of gypsum excavated and given to Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. Therefore, services cannot be classified as Cargo Handling or Site formation.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1141
  • Cenvat Credit: Input services: Services used for construction of immovable property for renting: Other courts have held that Service Tax paid on the services such as construction service, consulting architects service, consulting engineers service, etc. which were used in relation to renting of immovable property service were held to be eligible input service under Rule 2(I) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: Stay granted on prima facie case.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 939
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Commission agent actually does the activity of sales promotion which is clearly covered by the definition of input service.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 952
  • Cenvat Credit: Invoices issued prior to appellants obtained registration: credit cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee was not registered during the relevant time.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1120
  • Cenvat credit: Input Service: Construction Service: Credit taken during the initial period when there was some case law in their support, which was later on reversed: Pre-deposit waived.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1013
  • Cargo Handling Service: The issue was whether the services provided by the appellant to M/s. Regional Oilseeds Grower's Co-carried Operative Union Ltd., Alwar and M/s. Dhara Vegetable Oil Foods Ltd., Alwar for packing, labeling, loading and unloading of their finished goods in the factory premises of the service recipient and amount received thereon, is subject to service tax under the category of cargo handling service or otherwise : when principal activity is "manufacture" according to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975 it is not possible to hold that the said activity carried out by appellant shall be cargo handling.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1142
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Refund: outdoor catering services, rent-a-cab service, GTA service, cleaning service, security service, accounting and auditing service, advertising service etc., are eligible input services. Therefore, the appellant is rightly entitled for the input service tax credit taken and for refund thereof on export.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1057
  • Refund: Services used for export of goods: A nexus between the input services and the output services is the sine qua non for a claim of refund of any unutilized CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on such input services.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 888
  • Cargo Handing Service: unloading of coal from the field and transferring the same within the port area and loading in rail wagon, is to be included in the gross value for discharge of Service Tax liability under Cargo Handling service: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 871
  • Cenvat Credit: Service tax paid by commission agents: appellant is eligible for the benefit of credit of Service Tax paid to the agent who had promoted sales of their products.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1145
  • Cenvat credit: Input services: Cement, steel & glass used for providing Works Contract Service: it is unexplainable as to how and in which manner the appellants are claiming the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the raw materials, which are in fact inputs for 'Works Contract Service provider and on which he has already decided not to avail the credit as a condition of availment of lower payment of Service Tax.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 897
  • GTA Service: Input Service: Respondent can use CENVAT Credit for discharge of Service Tax liability on GTA services.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 973
  • GTA Service: Liability to discharge service tax: Department alleged Goods Transport Agency was not an output service provided by the respondent and hence they could not have utilized Cenvat credit for payment of service tax on the services of Goods Transport Agency received by them: Held credit admissible.

     

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1122
  • Cenvat Credit: Refund: It is not the case of the department that the input services which have been received falls under any of the exclusion clause specified under Rule 2 (I): So long as there is an integral connection between the input service availed and the out put service provided, Cenvat credit is available.

  • STO 2012 Guj 1138
  • Whether services namely Technical Testing and Analysis Service: Technical Testing and Certification Service, Business Auxiliary Service (Service rendered by the Commission agent), Service rendered by clearing and Forwarding Agent, Courier Service, Commercial and Industrial Construction Service, Maintenance or Repair service, Interior Decorator Service, Management Consultancy Service, availed by the petitioner, as eligible services for availing input service credit as defined under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004services rendered by a technical inspection and certification agency fall under sub-clause (zzi) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act which is one of the clauses specified under sub-rule (5) of rule 6 of the Rules.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 920
  • Cenvat Credit: Wrongly availed: Interest payable: Stay: Directions issued for pre deposit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1067
  • Cenvat credit: Invoice showing address at Pune which is not registered premises: Services used at Nagpur office which is registered: Wrong address mentioned in the invoice may prove to be a curable defect: Matter remanded for verification.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1061
  • Refund: Accumulated Cenvat Credit: Refund of Cenvat credit can be allowed irrespective of when the credit was taken in case of service providers exporting 100% of their services.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 883
  • Exemption: Notification No. 8/2005-S.T exempts job work on certain conditions: This exemption does not attract provisions of Rule 6(2) restriction to utilize Cenvat credit: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 953
  • Cenvat credit: Payment of duty: Manufacturer can utilise CENVAT credit for payment of goods transport agency service.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 886
  • Cargo Handling Service: Loading & Unloading services provided by the respondent within the premises of client cannot be considered as CHS.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 944
  • GTA Service: Payment of Service Tax by service receiver: When the respondent was paying service tax on GTA service, they were doing so on an “output service” and, therefore, they were entitled to utilise CENVAT credit for payment of such tax.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 843
  • GTA Service: Post 1.4.2008 service tax paid on clearance of goods on FOR basis: Appellants being owners of goods upto the place of removal which is buyer’s premises: Cenvat credit available.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 815
  • Cenvat Credit: GTA Service: Utilisation of Cenvat credit for payment of Service Tax in respect of GTA services so received by them on reverse charge basis admissible: Tax paid from PLA to be refunded.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 822
  • Cenvat Credit: Utilisation for payment of service tax on GTA service: the issue of availability of Cenvat credit for discharging service tax on GTA services so received during the period after 18.04.06 and before 01.03.08 stands decided by various decisions of the Tribunal.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 941
  • Stay: Irregularly availed Cenvat credit: The appellants may not be eligible for interest on refund, ordering of pre-deposit of interest on the credit taken by them and which was lying in their account unutilized will be harsh.

     

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 827
  • GTA Service: Utilisation of Cenvat credit: No need to pay service tax in cash.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1004
  • Cenvat credit: Input service: Real Estate Agent: Service tax paid admissible as credit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 787
  • GTA Service: Abatement: Cenvat credit: Endorsement given by transporter about non availment of credit: Abatement admissible.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1070
  • Outdoor Catering: Canteen Service: Cenvat credit: Appellant would be eligible for the CENVAT credit on the service tax paid subject to the condition that there is no recovery of the cost of the food from the employees and if any cost has been recovered, the assessee has to reverse the credit taken proportionately.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 930
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Services: The architectural services having been used for putting in place the said rain water harvesting system cannot be treated as having no nexus with the business activities of the appellant which relates to manufacture of carbonated beverages and aerated water.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 807
  • Cenvat Credit: Input service: Services used for coal block also used in relation to providing output service or in relation to manufacture of finished goods: credit admissible.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 801
  • GTA Service: Service receiver: Prior to 1.3.2008 liable to utilize Cenvat credit for paying service tax on GTA: Can take Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA from the place of removal.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 785
  • GTA Service: Service receiver: Prior to 1.3.2008 liable to utilize Cenvat credit for paying service tax on GTA: Can take Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA from the place of removal.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1085
  • Cenvat Credit: Jammu & Kashmir is outside the purview of Service Tax net: Restriction of Rule 6(3) would not apply: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1074
  • Cenvat credit: Input Service: Service tax paid on 'rent-a-cab service' for transportation of staff from Vashi railway station to the container freight station run by the appellant is an eligible input service under Rule 2(1) of the Rule.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 771
  • Demand: Cenvat credit: Principals found to have taken credit more than the amount of service tax paid by the appellants: Appellants contention that principals took credit on the basis of invoices issued and not on the basis of service tax paid by them: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 812
  • Outdoor Catering: Canteen facility provided to the workers statutorily: Charges recovered from the employees: Appellants reversed Cenvat credit taken by them: Case made out for full waiver.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 1008
  • Liability: Sub-contractor: Prior to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, if the main person has paid service tax, sub-contractor need not pay service tax again: Demand for the prior period not sustainable, no question of imposing penalty.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 913
  • Outdoor Catering: Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Credit admissible provided they have not charges from the employees.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 850
  • Cargo Handling Service: Mining Service: excavation of limestone, its loading and transportation to the crushing unit located within the precincts of the mine fall under Mining Service: Stay granted from recovery.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 747
  • Cenvat Credit: Service tax paid on outward transportation of goods: Conditions prescribed in the Board’s Circular required to be fulfilled.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 728
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Demand: Stay: Credit taken immediately after payment of value for services received, credit admissible even though service tax on the said service paid subsequently by the service provider: Stay granted from recovery.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 851
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Rent-a-cab: The appellants shall be eligible for the credit of rent-a-cab service provided, they are able to satisfy that the rent-a-cab service has been utilized for transport of employees/officials or business related visitors to their factory/office.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 845
  • 'Cargo Handling Services', 'Customs House Agent Services' and 'Steamer Agent Services': On scrutiny of the ST-3 returns for the period from April 2006 to September 2006, it was noticed that the appellants have short paid service tax and that during the period from June 2006 to July 2006 the assessee had also utilized credit in excess of the credit which was available as balance. On this being pointed out, the amount equal to the irregularly availed credit was paid back in cash before the issue of show-cause notice and the short paid service tax was also paid after issue of show-cause notice : Recovery of Interest and Imposition of Penalties upheld: Appeal rejected.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 861
  • Construction Service: Abatement and Cenvat Credit: Appellants availed abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1/3/2006 and also availed Cenvat credit: Directions issued for partial pre deposit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 735
  • Cenvat Credit: Input tax credit: Appellants are entitled for input service credit on rent-a-cab service if the same is used by them for the official purpose and for bringing and dropping of their employees from their residence to the place of work as the said activity availed by them is in the course of business of manufacture.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 773
  • Cenvat credit: Input service credit taken on GTA service for outward transportation beyond the place of removal: Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 770
  • Cenvat credit: Renting of Immovable Property: Service tax paid for construction of building rented out admissible as input service tax credit: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 698
  • Renting of Immovable Property Service: Stay: The appellant providing output service i.e. renting out of immovable property services. If that be so, any input services in providing such output service will be eligible for cenvat credit. In the given case, it is undisputed that the property belongs to the appellant and the construction of the said property was done and handed over to him which he subsequently rented out to various persons: Stay granted. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 794
  • Cargo Handling Service: There is no difference between the words “goods” and “cargo” and the activity undertaken by them includes transportation. It is also found that the first appellants were handling the cargo of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited: Prima facie case for complete waiver not found : Directions for pre deposit issued. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 716
  • CENVAT credit: Service Tax paid on Goods Transport Agency service in respect of outward transportation: Stay: Expenses on account of Goods Transport Agency Service in respect of the goods exported are included the FOB value of the goods exported whereas for domestic clearances the applicant is not entitled for CENVAT credit in respect of service tax paid on the GTA service: Directions issued for partial pre deposit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 837
  • Cenvat Credit: Items like M.S. channels, M.S. beams, M.S. plates, M.S. coils etc. which have been used in the expansion project of the cement mill: Stay: No financial hardship raised: Directions issued to pre deposit Rs.1 crore.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 644
  • Benefication of coal: It is a mining activity and for earlier period would not fall under Business Auxiliary Service: Activity of loading unloading of coal from washery is connected activity and not an independent activity, hence, not a taxable service under Cargo Handling Service.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 839
  • Cenvat credit: Rule 6(3) Reversal: Not applicable to services provided to SEZ units: Stay granted from recovery.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 699
  • Cenvat Credit: Wrong availment: Stay: the appellants availed cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacturer having Central Excise Registration, they have paid the amount by Account Payee Cheques and the machines are in existence in the factory of the applicant. This Tribunal in the case of Sunvik Steels Ltd. has allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect of goods supplied by the same supplier. In these circumstances, the applicants are able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 686
  • Cenvat Credit: Input services: Services used to build immovable property which has been rented out cannot be allowed. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 726
  • Stock Broking: Cenvat Credit: Input Services: Demand: Stay: NSE/BSE transaction charges not includible: Auction charges paid as pure agent not includible: Outdoor catering services in relation to business entitled as credit: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 688
  • Cenvat Credit: Services provided outside SEZ: Larger period : Even if the appellants were to pay the Service Tax, the recipient could have claimed the refund and during the period prior to 03.03.2009 and subsequent to 20.05.2009, exemption was available and apparently during the relevant period by oversight, the provisions of exemption got omitted: Larger period not invokable. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 689
  • Cenvat Credit: Stay: Appellant have taken CENVAT credit on service tax paid by the sub-contractors without including the value of such services in the value of service rendered by them to Reader's Digest: Directions issued for partial pre deposit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 680
  • Cenvat credit: Input service: GTA service tax paid as recipient and tax credit availed: Such credit permissible only for a person providing output service: As per the definition of output service under Rule 3(4)(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 credit is only available for set off against tax liability arising on providing output service.  

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 664
  • Cenvat credit: Input services: Event management service and clearing and forwarding service does not fall within the category of input credit service as defined in Rule 2 (I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Therefore, prima facie, the applicants are not entitled for the benefit of input service credit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 677
  • Cenvat credit: Input Service: Appellants doing trading activity which is not a taxable service: Credit not admissible: Appellants contending that they are also providing erection, commissioning or installation, repair service during warranty period etc: Directions issued for partial pre deposit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 739
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Services: Cenvat credit of service tax paid on mobile services is admissible.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 704
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Outward transportation of final products from the place of removal would be admissible for CENVAT credit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 723
  • Cenvat Credit: All services related to business, hence, credit admissible: Department’s appeal rejected..

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 561
  • GTA Service: Endorsement of non utilization of Cenvat credit on consignment note: once the declaration has been filed by GTA on their letter-head as regards non-availment of CENVAT Credit, the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST should not be denied.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 542
  • Cargo Handling Service: The activity of transportation and stacking within the stockyard premises not covered: Demand set aside.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 684
  • Cenvat credit: Service tax paid on maintenance of staff colony: Prima facie case not made out: Directions for pre deposit issued. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 548
  • Demand: Cenvat Credit: For the period January, 2005 to December, 2007 the issue regarding CENVAT Credit on outward freight for the period prior to 01.04.2008 stands settled by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Banglore in the case of A.B.B. Ltd.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 478
  • GTA Service: Cenvat Credit: Declaration absent on consignment notes: However, general declaration obtained from transporters that they will not avail Cenvat credit: Benefit of credit extended.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 536
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Commission paid to foreign agent for procuring orders and promoting business is an input service.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 591
  • Construction of Complex Service: Centralised Cenvat Credit: utilization of centralised CENVAT credit for payment of service tax for the service availed under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' and 'Construction of Complex Services' is permissible.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 492
  • GTA Service: Abetment: Consignment note did not mention declaration of transporter about non availment of Cenvat credit: invoice mentioned such declaration and also showed invoice numbers: Abetment admissible.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 442
  • Cenvat Credit: Rule 3(5) provides that if any inputs or capital goods are removed outside the premises of the provider of output service for providing such service, there is no requirement for any demand of duty or reversal of credit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 858
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Security service used for providing security for pipe line bringing water to pump house which is used as coolant in the factory is admissible as credit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 444
  • Cenvat Credit: Utilisation for discharging excise duty: the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court extending the credit of tax paid on all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product is required to be followed.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 386
  • Cenvat credit: Input Service: credit admissible even for services used prior to obtaining registration.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 623
  • Cenvat credit: Wrong availment: Recovery: proceedings are for confirmation of demand in terms of section 73A of the Finance Act which relates to the tax collected by an assessee from the buyers, which is not required to be collected. However, the appellant having already paid such collected amount to the Revenue (though through Cenvat credit), they cannot be made to deposit the same again with the Revenue.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 435
  • Cenvat Credit: Stay: Credit taken on services utilized in the staff colony: Directions issued for partial pre depositDirections issued for partial pre deposit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 534
  • Cenvat Credit: There is no provision in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for segregation of input services utilized in manufacture or to provide output service: Credit admissible.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 494
  • Penalty: Revenue neutrality: Availability of Cenvat credit is good reason for revenue neutrality: Penalty not imposable.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 455
  • Mode of payment of tax: Appellants used Cenvat credit availed on service tax paid on output service: Permissible, hence, no question of demanding payment in cash or asking for interest.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 530
  • Cenvat Credit: Works Contract Service: Appellants entitled for Cenvat credit on input services and capital goods.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 482
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Services: GTA services utilized for transport of the motor vehicles cannot be treated as input services for the activities of the respondent relating to the authorized service station.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 401
  • Cenvat Credit: Service Tax on GTA as recipient of service is permissible to be taken as credit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 451
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: If after sales service expenses are included in the assessable value, the assessee is entitled for input service credit on the expenses incurred on after sales charges.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 301
  • Cenvat Credit: Stay: Advice Transfer Debit used for taking Cenvat credit : Stay granted in various other cases of BSNL: Restriction of credit under 6(3)(c) not applicable when credit on capital goods is involved, it is applicable only in case of inputs and input services : Stay granted on prima facie ground.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 270
  • Cenvat credit: Once the credit is admissible and taken it forms part of a common pool and manufacturer who is paying excise duty on the goods manufactured and also is a service tax assessee liable to pay service tax, can utilise the credit available for payment of service tax or excise duty according to his convenience.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 286
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Services: Pathological Laboratory Service: Service Tax paid on welfare activity are not admissible as CENVAT Credit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 291
  • Service Tax: Cenvat Credit of GTA: CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on GTA service in the capacity of receiver can be used for payment of Service Tax on GTA service.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 230
  • GTA Service: Whether recipient of service can utilize Cenvat credit for discharging service tax liability on same GTA service: Recipient of services from the GTA is liable to pay the Service Tax and as such provider of taxable service in terms of Rule 2(r) and consequently gets covered by output service definition as appearing in Rule 2(p) of the Rules.
     

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 235
  • Cargo Handling Service: when goods are moved within mining area such goods are not "cargo": Stay granted unconditionally.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 232
  • Demand: Stay: Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Service Tax paid under Section 66A: Department contended that credit not admissible as service tax discharged not under Section 66 but under 66A: Impugned order did not consider all the submissions on technical and legal aspects made by the appellants: Waiver from pre deposit granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 204
  • GTA Service: Cenvat Credit: Stay: Such declarations/certificates are not required to be given on each and every consignment and inasmuch as the different goods transport agencies do not fall under the modvat credit or getting the benefit under Notification No.12/03, the Tribunal directed that such condition cannot be made the basis for rejecting the abatement claim. Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 327
  • Interest: Cenvat Credit wrongly taken not utilized: Interest Payable.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 310
  • Erection commissioning Service: Installation of telecommunication towers: Abetment claimed: Lower authorities did not examine issue whether respondents had availed Cenvat credit: No evidence that the credit was availed by them: Revenue’s appeal rejected.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 116
  • Commercial or Industrial Construction Service : Benefit of Notfn.No.1/2006-ST admissible if Cenvat credit on capital goods, inputs and input services has not been availed : Stay : Appellants reversed credit of Rs.4 Crores on capital goods, they are directed to deposit Rs.1.50 crores more as pre deposit

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 134
  • Refund: Notfn.No.41/2007-ST: Various services in dispute: As regards CHA service and GTA service, respondents are eligible for CENVAT Credit up-to the place of removal and in the case of export on FOB basis, the place of removal has to be taken as Port.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 364
  • Cargo Handling Service: Storage & Warehousing Service: Service Tax is not leviable on the activities of the custodian where he auction abandoned cargo and ST/VAT is paid in respect of that cargo.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 366
  • Cenvat credit: Use of cenvat credit for discharging service tax where the services received as input services and not for output services: Stay granted: Matter remanded back to the original authority. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 216
  • Refund: Unutilised Cenvat credit : As per Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if the assessee is providing taxable service although they are exempt by way of notification, but have been exported, then the assessee is entitled to take input service credit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 415
  • Cenvat Credit: Towers being immovable property, nexus with output service denied: Credit inadmissible declared by lower authorities: However, looking to decision of co-ordinate bench stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 336
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Services: Credit taken on input services/inputs used for construction of building rented out and credit utilized for discharging service tax on Renting of Immovable Property: Case for partial waiver made out in respect of input services.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 151
  • Cargo Handling Service: When movement of goods within the factory, service not taxable: Prima facie case made out: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 88
  • Cargo Handling Service: Demand: Activity carried out within the factory for loading and unloading of the goods shall not amount to cargo handling.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 416
  • Cenvat Credit: Service tax paid on outward transportation permissible as per Karnataka High Court judgment in ABB Ltd case.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 379
  • Transportation of Goods by road: Service tax paid in cash: Interest cannot be claimed as there was no need to pay in cash Cenvat credit could have been used for payment of service tax.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 130
  • GTA Service: Recipient of service: Utilisation of Cenvat Credit: Output service has been defined categorically excluding the services of GTA services from 01.03.08 which would mean that though the liability to pay the service tax on the GTA services received is on the appellant, the said activity of discharging of service tax liability, from 01.04.08 will not be considered as an output service provided by the appellant. If that be so, the activity of the appellant in debiting the amount in his RG 23 A Pt-II or the cenvat account seems to be erroneous.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 74
  • Cargo Handling Service: Neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order there is any finding that the appellants were engaged in loading of coal at the railway siding. Just bringing the coal to railway siding would not be covered by Cargo Handling Service.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 339
  • Cenvat Credit: Wrong availment: Stay: Appellants took Cenvat credit of inputs & capital goods imported by L&T who constructed caverns for the appellants to utilize for storage & warehousing service: No nexus of inputs/capital goods with providing output service of storage & warehousing: Prima facie case in favor of the appellants not found.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 84
  • Cargo Handling Service v/s Transportation of Goods: Loading or unloading of goods is not an activity for Cargo Handling Service, but it is for transportation of goods.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 93
  • Reverse charge mechanism: Appellants received services from abroad and paid service tax from Cenvat Account: Demand raised and confirmed on the ground that only output service provider can utilize Cenvat Credit: Stay granted on the basis of previous decision in some other case granting unconditional stay. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 358
  • Cenvat Credit: Service Tax paid for construction of factory eligible as credit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 127
  • Cenvat Credit: Taxable & exempted services provided: In view of the non-obstante Clause used, sub-rule (5) which prevails over sub-rules (1), (2) and (3). In other words, even if sub-rule (3) prescribes a limit of 20% for availment of service tax credit, sub-rule (5) provides for whole of the service tax credit in respect of the specified input services. This was in existence even in 2007-08.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 71
  • Cenvat Credit: Taxable & Non Taxable Services: Declaration not filed: For subsequent period the same authority dropped the demand : Waiver granted from pre deposit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 399
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Services: Nexus not required to be proved, even by the nature of service its nexus with the manufacturing activity can be satisfied.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 49
  • Cargo Handling Service: Activity of loading and unloading in the mining area does not cover under the category of Handling Service. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 68
  • GTA Service: Abetment denied on the ground that there was no endorsement about non availment of Cenvat credit by transporter: Although there is no endorsement on the consignment that the transporter has not availed CENVAT credit but it is implied that when the transporter has not paid any service tax as the same has been paid by the appellants as recipient of service, question of availment of input/input service tax credit does not arise.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 40
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: Security Agency Service and Construction service used at residential township not admissible: Directions issued for pre deposit.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 334
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: services used for trading activity not admissible as trading is not a taxable service.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 219
  • Cenvat Credit: Towers and pre-fabricated buildings: Inputs: Bonafide belief: Appellants failed to prove that due to bonafide belief they took Cenvat credit as they had not taken Cenvat credit on cement used for pre-fabricated buildings: Hence, looking to the fact that the appellants have no case on limitation, directions issued for partial pre deposit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 32
  • Commercial & Industrial Construction Service: Abatement: Cenvat Credit: Credit availed prior to 1.3.2006 cannot be the reason for denying abatement: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 213
  • Exemption: Abatement v/s Cenvat Credit: there is no bar/restriction in discharging service tax liability thro accumulated CENVAT credit so long as no CENVAT credit is taken on the inputs/capital goods or input services used in the rendering of the service in the given case or contract and we hold accordingly.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 285
  • Cenvat Credit: Input Service: inputs like cement, iron and steel, tiles, marbles, granite, etc. which were used in the construction of the buildings cannot be treated as inputs in relation to the 'Renting of Immovable Property Services': Directions to make pre deposit issued.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 16
  • Cargo Handling Service: To call an activity to be cargo handling service there should be an activity of movement of cargo from one place to another place without, any internal movement within the mining area.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 44
  • Demand: Conversion of black bars into white bars: Appellants removing goods under Rule 4(v)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and principal manufacturer paying duty on finished goods, made appellants believe that they were not required to pay service tax: Larger period cannot be invoked: Penalty cannot be imposed: Stay granted.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 45
  • Demand: Multiple Services: Service tax and interest payable: Penalty not imposable as during the material period there were decisions allowing Cenvat credit on input services even for services provided to workers’ colony.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 295
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling services/ Business auxillary services: Demand: i) The agreement is about the sale of goods manufactured in the factory premises of the appellants for export. The agreement shows that both have entered into a contract for sharing export incentive between them, for the purpose they charges at the rate of 3.25 of FOB value. Prima facie this cannot be charged under the category of business auxiliary for exporting and for promoting the services of sale of products. ii) As regards the cargo handling services, it is not disputed that appellants herein is a manufacturer and as per the terms and conditions of sale and purchase of goods, he loads the consignment in his factory premises for further dispatch to the purchaser. Prima facie this activity also may not fall under the category of cargo handling services.(Para 4). Application for waiver of the said amount, is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till disposal of the appeal.(Para 5). 

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 183
  • Stay: Airport Service v/s Storage & Warehouse Service: From 10.9.2004 all services given by any airport are covered under Airport service : Stay granted subject to partial pre deposit.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 244
  • Cargo Handling Service: Loading and unloading activity undertaken by individual not taxable.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 255
  • Service Tax: Port services ( viz. Testing & analysis service, Export certification service, Courier service, Disinfecting and fumigation service, Transportation Services, CHA services): Refund: Notification No. 41/07 which provides for refund of service tax paid on service received by the exporter specifically provides in column 3 of the schedule that when service has been provided as per the written agreement between the exporter and the buyer, refund of service tax is available. Since the refund is admissible only in respect of services received as per the requirements of written agreement and subject to submission of copy of written agreement, the lower authorities cannot be found fault with for requiring that the same should be provided. Therefore the claim of refunds in respect of testing & analysis service and export certification services and appeal in respect of these two services are rejected. (Para 3). The refund on courier services is denied on the ground that IEC number and export invoice numbers are not available in the receipt issued by the courier agency. Since procedural defects can be rectified subsequently and incorporation of details with regard to the relevant invoices issued by courier can be done subsequently, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration. In the Notification No.41/07 as amended, the refund of service tax paid on specialized cleaning services namely disinfecting, experimenting, sterilizing or fumigating of containers used for' export of said goods provided to an exporter are admissible subject to two conditions namely a copy of the written agreement is provided and the exporter shows that the service provider is accredited by the statutory authority to provide such service. Accordingly the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority (Para 4). Defects noticed in the invoices raised by Transport and CHA service provider are rectifiable defect and appellants have to be given an opportunity to rectify this defect. Accordingly the refund claim relating to this aspect is also remanded to the original adjudicating authority.(Para 5,6)

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 211
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Services: Limitation: Penalty: The audit by the department on previous occasions did not point out this issue though they were collecting charges during such period also, the Appellant did not have any intention to evade the impugned tax. Therefore the demand will be sustainable only to the extent of demand covered by the normal period of time of one year. Interest under section 75 is to be paid on the sustainable portion of the demand. Penalty under section 76 will be maintainable in respect of the period within normal period. Penalty under section 78 will not be maintainable. (para 6)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 672
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Services: Handling and processing of slag and iron scrap: Pre-deposit: The appellants had already deposited the service tax in respect of loading activity. Remaining activities are in respect of contract for recovery and processing of slag and scrap. Therefore, prima-facie, the appellants have a strong case in their favour and the deposit already made is sufficient for hearing of the appeal. (para 5)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 508
  • Cargo Handling Service: transportation/safety and stocking of the goods inside the factory not covered: Stay granted.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 383
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Predeposit: Prima facie, activity of shifting of minerals from the pithead to a specified location within the miner area with the help of excavator and tipper, not to be falling under cargo handling service. Requirement of predeposit is waived.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 398
  • Cargo Handling Service: Loading and unloading of cargo within the factory itself not covered within the ambit of service.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 176
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Pre-deposit: Applicants are providing goods, transport agency service within the mining area and loading and un-loading of the coal is incidental to the Service. Revenue is treating the loading and unloading of the coal as provider of cargo handling service. Applicants had a strong case in their favour and the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the Appeal. The pre-deposit of remaining amount of Service Tax and interest and penalties are waived and recovery of the same is stayed. (para 4)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 102
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Services: Storage and Warehousing services: In the show cause notice and in the orders of the original authority, it was held that these activities pertain to `Cargo Handling Services'. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the activity more appropriately fell under 'storage and warehousing services'. The impugned order is at variance with the proposals in the show cause notice. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. (para 6)

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 79
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: on merits the issue stands against the assessees by the Tribunal's decision in the case of J. K. Transport Vs. CCE, Raipur -STO 2006 CESTAT 45 wherein it has been held that a proprietary firm, cannot be said to be an individual undertaking the activity of loading and unloading of cargo in individual capacity and hence covered under cargo handling services.

    Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Bar of Limitation: Since the period in dispute is from August, 2002 to 12.10.04, while the show cause notice is dated 31.1.2005, the demand for the period up to 31.01.2004 is barred by limitation. The demand for the period from February, 2004 to 12.10.2004 is upheld and required to be requantified, for which purpose the case is remanded to the adjudicating authority. Since, part of the demand is upheld, imposition of penalty under Section 76 and Section 77 are also required to be sustained. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1484
  • Service Tax: Stevedoring Services: Scope and liability: The services rendered by the applicant were classified by the Adjudicating Authority under ‘port services.' It is admitted fact that applicants are providing 'stevedoring services' involving unlashing/lashing of containers in vessels for discharge of import and export containers. The issue seems to be squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Vs. Konkan Marine Agencies. Applicant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit(Para 5).

    Stay allowed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1140
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Services: Activity of loading and unloading of goods for Steel Authority of India Ltd.: Scope and liability: As per Section 65(23) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 “cargo handling service” means “loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo and includes cargo handling services provided for freight in special containers or for non-containerised freight, services provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal, for all modes of transport and cargo handling service incidental to freight, but does not include handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods”. The CBEC had clarified vide Circular No. 1/2002 dated 1.8.2002 that the services liable to tax are those provided by cargo handling agencies who undertake the activity of packing, unpacking, loading and unloading of goods meant to be transported by any means of transportation namely truck, rail, ship or aircraft. The assessees have admittedly undertaken the activity of loading and unloading the goods meant to be transported. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission that they are only rendering material handling services unrelated to cargo handling service.(Para 2).

    Appeal rejected.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1180
  • Service Tax: Taxable value of "Site Formation": Scope and liability: Remand: The case of the appellant is construction of a "Dam" and that is beyond the purview of levy of service tax in terms of Notification No.17/05-ST dated 07.06.05. Dams are excluded from the purview of taxation. In view of following decisions:- (1) Larsen & Tubro Ltd. vs. CCE, Cochin reported in STO 2003 CESTAT 30 (2) Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara reported in CEO 2003 CESTAT 14  (3) Contemporary Packaging Technologies P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara reported in 2003 (155) ELT 461 (Tri. - Del.). "Site Formation" for constructing a dam is exempted from service tax under the law. The circular and notification relied upon by both the sides needs to be examined thread bare to test whether the various activities of site formation has given rise to a "dam" or an "Ash Dyke". In view of the nature, purpose and characteristics of "dam" need to be brought to record, it is necessary to send the matter back for re-examination of stand of each other on the light of the circulars, notifications and citations relied upon by both. Commissioner while passing the order has not examined the circular and notifications aforesaid to redress grievance of the appellant. Exemption granted to an assessee once found applicable to him, full effect must be given to it following the ratio laid down in the case of Novopan India Ltd. vs. CCE & Customs, Hyderabad reported in STO 1994 SC 17 (Para 6,11,12).

    Cargo Handling Service: So far the second issue is concerned the nature and scope of "cargo handling" service has already been decided by the Tribunal by its various decisions viz:- 1. Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cus. & S.T., BBSR reported in STO 2007 CESTAT 1260  (Tri.-Kolkata) 2. Gajanand Agarwal vs. CCE, BBSR S.T.R. 138 (Tri.-Kolkata) reported in 2009 (13) 3. Modi Construction Co. vs. CCE, Ranchi reported in STO 2008 CESTAT 875  (Tri.-Kolkata)(Para 13).
    Matter remanded.
     

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1184
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling service, Business auxiliary service, Mining service: Scope and liability: There is a composite contract executed by the appellant and activities like excavation, transportation from the mining site to the crushing site, mining goods and transportation of the crushed goods to the door of the buyer were involved. Such distinct activities themselves are taxable distinctly under provisions of law. When the composite contract was executed involving several taxable services, value of each such taxable service was not worked out by the appellant to make its claim on this basis of evidence. Tribunal has already held that loading and unloading activities within the mining area shall not fall under "Cargo Handling Service" as held in Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd Vs CCE reported in 2008 (9) STR 531 case. So also what shall be "Cargo Handling Service", Tribunal has already explained in Gazanand Agarwal & Others Vs CCE, BBSR reported in 2008-TIOL-2076- CESTAT-Kol and Modi Construction Co. Vs CCE Delhi reported in 2008 (12) STR 34 (Tri-Kol) by Revenue.(Para 6).

    Pre-deposit ordered.
     

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1239
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling service: Activity of handling various types of cargo through their aircrafts at various airports: Scope and liability: Board circular F. No. B-11/1/2002, dated 1-8-2002 while detailing cargo handling agent's case for example, service provider as Container Corporation of India, Airport Authority of India, Inland Container Depot, Container Freight Stations; which is though illustrative and not exhaustive refers to service provider but actually perform such services and there is no reference to any of the airlines who undertake transportation of the goods. Taking the clue from the above, it has to, be held that the services, if any, provided by the airlines for transportation of the cargo from one place to another cannot be covered under the category of cargo handling service. once the new entry is introduced with effect from the date without disturbing already existing entries, it has to be held that the new entry was not covered by the previous entry. The reference in this regard is made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Board of Control For Cricket in India v. C.S.T., Mumbai - STO 2007 CESTAT 74 (Para 3,4).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1201
  • Service Tax: Transporting coal within the mining area: Cargo handling service: Scope: This issue is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. vs. CCE, C & ST. BBSR. - STO 2007 CESTAT 1260 in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that transportation of coal within the mining area is not cargo handling service.(Para 2,4).

    Stay petition allowed.
     

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 812
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling Service: Scope and Liability: The respondent was realising material handling charges from their customers. This should bring them to the fold of the law under the category of "Cargo handling service". The major portion of the work is loading and unloading within the plant and which was not made by the appellant under the category of cargo handing service. The Tribunal in the case of Mod! Construction Co. Vs. CCE, Ranchi reported in STO 2008 CESTAT 875 has already held that mere transportation will not amount to "cargo handling" unless loading, unloading packing or unpacking of cargo and handing of such cargo is the primary object of the contract between the parties.(Para 4.1).

    Revenue appeal dismissed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 750
  • Service Tax: Port services: Scope and liability: Time bar: In terms of the Board's Circular No. 39/97 dated 11.06.1997, the applicant had been discharging Service Tax on 15% of the gross amount received from the clients. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. However, Show Cause Notices have been issued invoking the longer period for demand of Service Tax under the following categories:- Cargo handling Services, Port Services, Transportation by Road, Custom House Agent. In other words, by issue of these Show Cause Notices, Revenue is of the view that the applicants during the relevant period, would be liable to Service Tax under the above mentioned categories and not simply for CHA services. Once the department has received service tax from the applicants in terms of this Circular, it is not acceptable if they invoke longer period alleging suppression of facts to demand service tax under other categories. However, while confirming the demand, the Commissioner has not given the break-up of the amounts of service tax confirmed under the different categories. This Bench, in a similar case, in the case of Shri Ganesh Shipping Agency Vs. CCE, Mangalore had taken a view that once the applicant discharges Service tax liability at 15% of the gross receipts in terms of the Public Notice then the balance amount cannot be subjected to Service Tax under other categories. This view has been taken in the Stay Order No.1144 and 1145/2008 dated 24.11.08. Moreover, the impugned order of the Commissioner lacks clarity.

    As per Maxwell on the Interpretation of statutes the primary rule is to give literal construction and if there is nothing to modify, alter or qualify the language which the statute contains, it must be construed in the ordinary and natural meaning of the words and sentences. All the words in the section have to be read in their natural meaning. The words ‘any manner’ appearing in Section 65(82) of Finance Act, cannot be rendered redundant, by confining the understanding of the section within the confines of the Major port Trusts Act 1963. A similar view has been held by the CESTAT Chennai in its interim order in Bhoruka Steel Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of service Tax STO 2007 CESTAT 582. Having said that it is to be stated that in this case the activity done by the assessee, also finds mention in section 42(1) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The service provider has also relied upon the decision of tribunal and upheld by the Apex court in the case of Daelim lndl. Co., Ltd. and Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. In the case of Daelim Indl. Co., the Tribunal observed that the said works contract not amenable to be split into individual components for levy of service tax. This being so the classification of various services done under one contract will have to be done as per section 65A(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. In case where the "port services" is the predominant element which gives the service its essential character vivisection of the other services being rendered by the same contract is not possible and duty will have to be discharged under 'port services' only. "

    Commissioner ought to have given the split up figures so that it would be clear to the applicants as well as to others as to the exact amount he would be demanding under the different categories. However, such an exercise has not been done. Moreover, on limitation also, Revenue does not have a strong case. Department was very well aware of the activities of the applicants. There was also correspondence between the applicants and the Department. Hence, suppression of facts cannot be alleged. Had the department felt that payment of service tax on 15% of the gross value is not in order, then they could have issued the Show Cause Notices within the normal period. This has not been done. In view of the lack of clarity in the impugned order to the extent that no break up of the demand under different categories had been given it can not be said that the demand is within the time limit. Pre-deposit waived. (Para 5, 5.1, 5.2)

    Stay granted.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 309
  • Cargo Handling Agent: The appellant is  liable to pay Service Tax under Cargo Handling Agent services as they are unloading the cargo and also using labourers under their employment for the said purpose . However,  question of interpretation of law involved  thus  no question of suppression. No demand for extended period .No penalty Warranted.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 618
  • Classification of Services: The change of classification can be done so, only after the assessee is put to such a notice. Complete waiver of pre-deposit.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 100
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Stay application: Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the activities undertaken by applicant do not fall under the category of Cargo Handling Service. The stay sought by the Department, if granted, would amount to giving final relief sought for in the appeal. There are no merit in the stay application.(Para 1).

    Stay rejected.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 11
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling services: Claim of deduction on account of payment made to the contract labour, from the gross receipt: Taxable value: Service Tax is chargeable on the gross value of the services provided. Even though there is an agreement to employ specific contract labour, it is a fact that such labourers are being paid by the appellants and they are being reimbursed for the service of Cargo Handling services provided by them. Hence, it makes no difference that specific contract labour have been employed. The service tax is payable on the gross value of the services. Hence, the service tax and interest there on confirmed under the impugned order are justified.

    Penalty: Appellants argues that service tax is a new levy and the appellants were under the impression that they are eligible for deduction towards payment of wages made to the contract labour and non payment of the demanded amount was not because of any deliberate attempt to evade the Service Tax but due to wrong understanding of the new levy. Considering this and keeping in view the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, imposition of equal penalty is higher and not warranted.(Para 3).

    Appeal rejected.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 609
  • Stay: Cargo Handling Service: Demand relating to loading and transportation of coal inside mining area which has been decided as not taxable by this Bench under the category of Cargo Handing Services. On the second issue relating to loading of coal into Railway Wagons for carrying outside the mines area though the issue is decided against the appellants by this Bench, demand in this case is clearly time barred for the most part as the Department had earlier issued a similar show-cause notice pertaining to a similar demand. Waiver granted.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 575
  • Cargo Handling Services: Sales Tax has been paid on the entire price including the value on which Service Tax is demanded. Pre-deposit waived  and stayed recovery of Confirmed demand of Service Tax on handling charges under the heading as Cargo Handling Services.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 5
  • Service Tax: Cargo handing service: Activity- providing pay loaders for loading of coal to wagons: Scope and liability: The meaning of 'cargo handling service' is well explained in the case of I.T.W. India Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus, Bhubaneswar - STO 2007 CESTAT 274. law for taxation under the class cargo handling service is that the service provided should be relating to or in relation to cargo handling by a cargo handling agency. The service provided should be integrally or inseparably connected with handling of cargo or attributable thereto without being a mere activity of transportation of such cargo since transport service independent of cargo handling is an exception under the scheme of levy by section 65(23) of the Act. Thus it can be said that loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo and handling of cargo for freight in special containers or non-containerized freight and service provided by container freight terminal or other freight terminal for all modes of transport are subject matter of taxation under the class "cargo handling service". That apart, any activity incidental to freight of cargo is also liable to be taxed under such class. Mode of transport is irrelevant for incidence of levy once the service provided meets the test of handling of cargo in the manner envisaged by law. It is also not necessary that the cargo should only be meant for transport either by vessel in ships or aircrafts. It was noticed from the agreement of the parties that time was essence of the contract. The nature of activity that was carried by the Appellants was to load the cargo i.e. coal in the Railway wagons. Such an activity squarely falls under the definition of cargo handling service provided by Section 65 (23) read with Section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1944 and brings the appellants to the fold of law for such service provided.(Para 16,17).

    Penalty and interest: The appellants had no intention to cause evasion of revenue but at the infancy stage of implementation of law there appears to have confusion as to taxability. Accordingly, the penalties levied under different Section of the law on all the appellants are waived. But when tax was leviable and realizable, the appellants shall be required to make payment of interest on the tax.(Para 17).

    Appeals disposed off.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 416
  • Pre-deposit of Penalty waived:  As per Section 80 of the Finance Act, the authorities are competent to waive the penalties in appropriate cases where the authorities are satisfied that the violation was not deliberate but in the circumstances such as occasioned by interpretation of the provisions.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 421
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling service: Movement of limestone in unpacked condition within mining area: Scope: In this case, the movement of limestone in unpacked condition is entirely within the mining area and the same cannot be considered to be cargo handling. It is also supported by decisions of this Tribunal viz. Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [STO 2007 CESTAT 1260], Commissioner of Central Excise v. B.K. Thakkar [STO 2007 CESTAT 1032] etc. From 1-6-2007, the appellants are paying Service tax on the above activities in the category of “mining services”, which were introduced for the purpose of the levy with effect from the said date. The activities recognised today as ‘mining activities’ could not have been treated as cargo handling for the prior period. The Board’s circular No. 232/2/2006-Cx.4 dated 12-11-2007 prima facie cannot be held to have laid down the legal position correctly to the extent it is contradictory to the view taken by the Tribunal. (Para1,2).

    Stay application allowed.

  • STO 2008 SC 107
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling service: Scope: Appeal admitted against CESTAT order saying that the expression “Cargo handling service” covers packing of cargo for all modes of transport and since the assessee had undertaken the activity of packing etc. to facilitate subsequent transport of cargo, they were covered under the said services. The Tribunal further held that the expression “packing of cargo” is wide enough to cover the activities undertaken by assessee such as unitising, strapping, packeting or packing the impugned goods into cargo for subsequent movement by trucks and/or rail.

    Appeal admitted.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 191
  • Supply of labour Vs. Cargo Handling: Appellant was actually supplying labour. The labourers had carried out the instructions of M/s. Hindalco in handling semi-finished or semi processed material inside the factory. That alone would not constitute cargo handling services. There is no evidence to show that the appellants had actually handled the cargo. Party’s appeal allowed.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 124
  • Cargo Handling Agents: The loading is incidental to mining and transportation.  The respondent cannot be considered as an agent in the context of rendering the service of cargo handling. Departmental appeal rejected.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 231
  • Port Services Vs. Cargo Handling: It has been held by Tribunal that stevedoring within the port area also amounts to “cargo handling” and not “port services”. The Commissioner’s conclusion that this service is port service is not correct.

    Sub-Contract: Even if the appellants had sub-contracted the cargo handling to other service providers, they are liable to remit the service tax. The appellants are duty bound to produce evidence of payment of service tax on services rendered by two sub-contractors.

    Time barred: The Department has levied service tax on 15% value of the composite contract. In our view this is arbitrary. Demand is time barred as the appellants had regularly been filing the service tax returns.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 38
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling service / Port services: Payment by main contractor: The main case of the appellants is that they are not liable to pay the above tax, which was paid by the main contractors. They have furnished statements indicating the particulars of payments of service tax for the above period by the main contractors. These payments are in the same category of services and in respect of the same amounts collected by the assessee from their clients during the above period. The appellants have relied on circulars of CBEC wherein, in respect of CHA service, it was clarified that, where the main contractor paid service tax on the subject-matter of demand, it was not open to the Department to demand the same tax from the sub-contractors. The decision to this effect, rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of BBR (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore STO 2006 CESTAT 162 has also been relied.(Para 1).

    Pre-deposit waived, stay granted.
     

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 162
  • Cargo Handling Service : Stay : Contracts between one of the activity undertaken by the applicant is product packaging and applicants were strapping the bundle by steel strap of required size which also undertake shifting of bundles from stock to the specified place of inspection. The applicant also undertakes opening and spreading of pieces for inspection. The applicant also entered into another contract for unitization of merchant products bundles placed on wagons by metal not a fit case for total waiver of amount of service tax.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 236
  • Cargo Handling Service: Judicial Discipline: The issues involved in these appeals and the activities undertaken by the respondents are similar to the ones which have been considered and decided upon by this Bench Order dated 2-11-07 (cited above) and no other decision contrary to the same by any higher court has been shown to us, we follow the ratio of the said Order and hold that the impugned activities are not subject to tax under cargo handling services.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 98
  • Cargo Handling Agency : On the abrupt finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that appellants had not provided any service as a Cargo Handling Agency in relation to cargo handling service and on finding that the contentions raised by the respondents were not dealt with before the original authority or before the Appellate authority. Matter remanded for passing a speaking order with reasons dealing with all contentions raised by both sides and after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 132
  • Cargo Handling Service : Prima facie, storage services provided by the applicants are one of the handling elements of providing “cargo handling service, following the ratio of the Punjab services” through the CFS. & Haryana High Court's decision in the case of CCE, Ludhiana v. Dr. Lal Path Lab (P) Ltd,  the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for the complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the Service Tax and penalties imposed.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 147
  • Cargo Handling : The applicants were unloading the coal wagons, crushing and conveying and feeding of coal to stock pile or bunkers through conveyer belts. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of S.B. Construction Company v. U.O.I., reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. 545 (Raj.) = STO 2006 Raj 685 has held that similar service is not covered under the scope of cargo handling system.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1415
  • Stay: Excavation, Coal cutting & mineral extraction: Most of the activities covered under the contract are not liable to Service tax as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of B.K.Thakkar and Sainik Mining & Allied Services Limited. Board’s Circular dated 12-11-2007 which was not before the Adjudicating Commissioner clarifies that excavation, coal cutting and mineral extraction are not chargeable to Service tax during the impugned period. At the most the hiring out of pay loaders for mechanical transfer of coal may be liable to Service tax though the related amount is not payable in view of time bar.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1379
  • Cargo Handling Service : The activities undertaken by the appellants do not come under the purview of cargo handling service as entire work is done in a mining area and they are not engaged in handling of any cargo.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1073
  • Cargo handling Service : Board’s Circular dated 1-8-2002 clarifying that mere transportation of goods is excluded from the purview of cargo handling service. The terms of the contract only to the effect that the contractor was to make arrangement to transport the fertilizers from railway station. The said terms are different from the terms of second contract, which is for handling the goods. Mere transportation of the goods would not make them as cargo handling service provider.

    Limitation : Notice issued after limitation period, demand time bar.

    Bonafides : Merely because the appellant did not apply for registration and did not pay tax is no ground to come to a finding that the same was done with a mala fide intention. Keeping in view the confusion prevailing in the field as regards the liability of service tax, the appellant is to be extended benefit of doubt and it is to be held that there was no intention to suppress or mis-declare the facts with intent to evade payment of duty

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 609
  • Service Tax: Mere transportation of goods shall not fall under ‘Cargo Handling Service’: Scope and liability: The issue to be decided in the present is as to whether the activity undertaken by the appellant, i.e., transportation of material from railway station to the company's customer's warehouse is covered under Cargo handling services or not. Cargo handling services stands defined under sub-section (23) of section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, as under:-

    "(23) 'Cargo handling service' means loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo and includes cargo handling services provided for freight in special containers or for non-containerised freight, services provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal, for all modes of transport and cargo handling service incidental to freight, but does not include handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods."

    The authority below has held that all the activities mentioned in the definition of cargo handling service have been undertaken by the appellant in terms of the contract for transportation, inasmuch as they include unloading from train railway wagons, stacking on railway platform, loading/unloading in contractor's trucks and loading trucks at company's warehouse and would constitute cargo handling services. However, the above loading, unloading in the truck is a part and parcel of the transportation of goods services. Reading of the definition of cargo handling service suggests loading unloading and packing or unpacking of cargo including freight special containers. The emphasis is on handling of cargo and such service may be incidental of freights, whereas transportation of the goods would incidentally include loading and unloading the same would not get covered by the definition of cargo handling services. To the same effect is the Board's Circular dated 1-8-2002 clarifying that mere transportation of goods is excluded from the purview of cargo handling service. The terms of the contract made on 8-4-2004 are only to the effect that the contractor was to make arrangement to transport the fertilizers from railway station. The said terms are different from the terms of second contract, which is for handling the goods. As such, mere transportation of the goods would not make them as cargo handling service provider.(Para 4,5).

    Period of limitation / Time bar: The demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as show-cause notice for the period 16-8-2002 to 31-10-2004 was issued on 12-9-2005. The service tax having been introduced for the first time was in a lot of confusion and doubt. Merely because the appellant did not apply for registration and did not pay tax is no ground to come to a finding that the same was done with a mala fide intention. Keeping in view the confusion prevailing in the field as regards the liability of service tax, the appellant is to be extended benefit of doubt and it is to be held that there was no intention to suppress or mis-declare the facts with intent to evade payment of duty. As such, the demand is barred by limitation also.(Para 6).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1225
  • Cargo Handling Service : Supply of labour will not come within the ambit of ‘Cargo Handling Services’.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1260
  • Cargo Handling Service: The dominant activities undertaken by the appellants under the contract in question are primarily the movement of coal within mining area and transfer of coal from the coal face to the tippers, if at all, includes loading and unloading which are merely incidental.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1377
  • Activities of Barge Operations, C & F Operations and Port Superintendence Prima facie examination revealed that the issues are covered by the decisions of Tribunal and Larger Bench. On one issue finally the matter would be required to be remanded back. Hence, ad interim stay granted from recovery till stay application and appeal is decided. Plea of DR accepted and Commissioner asked to file parawise comments.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1275
  • Stay : Cargo Handling Service : Movement of coal from railway wagon to the site of Thermal Power Station. Not covered. Prima facie strong case waiver granted.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1239
  • Penalty : Cargo Hanlding Service: Penalty for delayed payment of service tax upheld.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 278
  • Service Tax: Enhancement of penalty in review order: The adjudication orders were challenged by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld demand of Service Tax, however, set aside the penalties. Against this order no appeal has been filed by the Revenue. As the order imposing penalty by the adjudicating authority is already set aside, therefore, the present order revising the order of adjudicating authority enhancing the penalties is not sustainable(Para 6).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1054
  • Stay: Cargo handling service: Supply of labours not covered under the category of “Cargo handling service”. Stay granted.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 274
  • Cargo Handling Service: The expression 'cargo handling service' covers packing of cargo for all modes of transport and since the Appellants have undertaken the activity of packing etc. to facilitate subsequent transport of the cargo, they are covered under the scope of 'cargo handling service'.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 25
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling agents: Scope and liability: Remand: The amount received under Annexure 7 was hire charges, the Authorities should do well to get confirmation from SAIL as to nature of activity really carried out to arrive at a proper conclusion. Once the taxability arises, the question of limitation can be decided. It is made abundantly clear that levy of tax on one aspect of the matter by Union Government and levy by the State Government on another aspect of the same transaction cannot be said to have overlapped the subject for taxation since each and every aspect of taxation by the entry relating to taxation is well known to the Legislature. Therefore, overlapping of the levy cannot be a plea and not acceptable. The leviability arises by proper determination of the issues making thorough inquiry. Matter remanded for detailed enquiry(Para 5).

    Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1284
  • Stay : The commission received for the activity of stock brokerage prima facie cannot be brought under the heading of ‘Cargo Handling.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 481
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Agent: Scope and liability: The dictionary meaning of cargo is to carry luggage in ship, vessel or aircraft. The applicant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of S.B. Construction Company v. Union of India reported in STO 2006 Raj 685 where the handling of coal from railway wagons to the site of thermal power station with the aid of wagon tippling system, held to be not covered under cargo handling service. Board Circular No. 11/1/2002 dated 1-8-2002 whereby it is clarified that cargo handling services means service provided by cargo handling agencies who undertake the activity of packing, unpacking, loading and unloading of goods meant to be transported by any means of transportation namely truck, rail, ship or aircraft. Well known examples of cargo handling service are services provided in relation to cargo handling by the Container Corporation of India, Airport Authority of India, Inland Container Depot. The contention is also that w.e.f. 17-7-2007 the appellants are registered with the revenue as provider of mining service and mining service are covered under service tax w.e.f. 1-6-2007. In view of the Board circular whereby scope of service is defined, the appellants have a strong case in their favour. (Para 1,4).

    Pre-deposit waived, stay allowed.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 193
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Scope: Appellants were rendering certain service on behalf of the principal contractor to their customer and that sub-contractors are not liable to pay Service Tax as clarified by the Board in a Circular dated 7-10-1998 and as held by the Tribunal in the cases of : (i) Semac Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore STO 2002 CESTAT 35. (ii) BBR (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore STO 2006 CESTAT 162. (iii) OIKOS v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III STO 2006 CESTAT 609. (Para 2).

    Pre-deposit waived, stay allowed.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 446
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Scope and liability: Appellants are not providing any service, which attracts service tax in view of the decision in the case of J.J. Enterprises v. CCE, Raipur reported in STO 2005 CESTAT 311 wherein it was held that where the assessee was not owner of the machines which are used for loading and unloading, their role being limited to supply of manpower, they are not rendering cargo handling service and were not liable to tax as such.(Para 1,2).

    Pre-deposit waived, stay allowed.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 442
  • Cargo handling service: Supply of manpower: Once the department accepts the fact that the appellant's case falls under the category of "manpower recruitment agency" and collects service tax under that category, they cannot say that during an earlier period they would be coming under cargo handling service.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 432
  • Service Tax: Supervision charges as cargo handling charges: Scope: Levy is on 'any service provided to any person, by a cargo handling agency in relation to cargo handling'. The appellant, is not a cargo handling agency, but a warehousing agency. Therefore, the additional amounts realised is in relation to other items, other than warehousing, may not come under the levy. The demand could not be raised beyond the normal period of limitation as extended period is available only in exceptional cases involving intent to evade payment of tax. Since appellant was discharging tax on its normal income from warehousing, it could not be held against it that the omission, if at all, to pay tax in regard to supervision charges was the result of intention to evade payment of tax.(Para 3,4).

    Balance pre-deposit waived, stay allowed.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 293
  • Cargo Handling Service: supplying labourers cannot be equated with the service of cargo handling even though they played some roles in the handling of the cargo.

  • STO 2006 CESTAT 289
  • Stay: Port Services: Cargo handling service: The appellants are not handling the cargo of the import. They were handling the cargo of the export goods. The definition of Cargo Handling Services excludes the handling of export goods.

  • STO 2006 Raj 685
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: It clearly appears that the Service tax has been levied under the 'Cargo Handling', on such services which undertakes the activities of packing, unpacking, loading, unloading of goods to be transported by any means of transportation namely truck, rail, ship or aircraft. In the instant case the service provided by the petitioner Firm under the contract is distinct i.e. transporting coal from wagons to Thermal Power Station by conveyor belt and not by any means of transportation. The service rendered by the petitioner under the subject contract does not fall under the ambit of Cargo Handling Services and as such it is not liable to pay the service tax. (para 10)

    Service Tax: Cargo Handling Service: Alternative Statutory Remedy  Article 226 of Constitution of India: It is settled position of law that the High Court has the power to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the impugned action of the executive authority is without jurisdiction or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment. (para 11)

  • STO 2006 CESTAT 687
  • Service Tax: cargo handling service: Scope and liability: Appellants were only carrying on supply of labours and they were paid only commission for supplying the labours and were not carrying on the cargo handling service. Hence the issue is covered by the cited judgment in the case of J & J Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [STO 2005 CESTAT 311].(Para 3).

    Pre-deposit waived, stay allowed.

  • STO 2006 CESTAT 469
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling services: Appellants entered into a contract with the manufacturer of refractory bricks to pack refractory bricks and is levied with Service Tax as a cargo handling agent providing cargo handling services. Tribunal considering the nature of services provided, held that the services are akin to packing services, and therefore, granted a full waiver and stay of recovery of the amount involved in Stay Petition No. 1053/04(EDM-806/04) being Tribunal's Order No. S-602/KOL/06 dated 22-5-06 = STO 2006 CESTAT 455 (Para 1).

    Appeal disposed off.
     

  • STO 2006 CESTAT 489
  • Service Tax: Due carrier charges: Scope and liability: Appellants are challenging the taxability of "due carrier charges" under the Finance Act, 1994 as also the penalties imposed on them by the lower authorities. The lower appellate authority has considered "cargo-handling service" of the appellants and has held the same to be exigible to service tax in terms of Clause (23) of Section 65 of the Finance Act. It is submitted that "cargo-handling service" does not include 'mere transportation of goods' and that transportation of goods by air has become taxable with effect from 10-9-2004 only. Counsel has also pleaded time-bar against the demand of tax. Partial pre-deposit ordered(Para 2).

    Stay application allowed.
     

  • STO 2006 CESTAT 1238
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling service: Demand: The issue is about levy of service tax on the activity of packaging of refractory bricks being conducted by the appellants under the head of levy as Cargo Handling Service, during the period 16-8-02 to 11-11-03. Such activity is specifically covered vide entry No. 65 (76b) w.e.f. 16-6-2005 and the appellant has been granted the registration w.e.f. that date.(Para 1).

    Pre-deposit waived, stay granted.

  • STO 2006 CESTAT 571
  • Service Tax: Cargo handling service: Input credit as steamer agent: It is an admitted fact that the input service provider was registered as a steamer agent and receiver of the output service is registered as a cargo handling services and these two services do not fall in the same sub-clause of Clause 90 of Section 65 and therefore the credit was clearly inadmissible to them in view of the Provision of Rule 3(2) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002.(Para 3).

    Pre-deposit ordered.
     

  • STO 2006 CESTAT 45
  • Service Tax: Cargo Handling Services: Scope and taxability: Board Circular provides that individuals undertaking the activity of loading or unloading of cargo in their individual capacity, are not covered under the scope of Cargo Handling Services. In the present case appellant is a proprietary firm and were engaged in the contract of loading and unloading Blastrefore, the reliance of the appellant on the Board Circular F. No. B11/1/2002-TRU, dated 1-8-2002 is no help to them. In these facts it cannot be said that the appellants is individual and in individual capacity he is undertaking the activity of loading and unloading of Cargo Handling Services.(Para 3).

    Appeal dismissed.

  • STO 2005 CESTAT 311
  • Cargo Handling Service: supplying manpower and supplying manpower cannot be equated with providing the service in question.

     
     

    www.centralexciseonline.com

     


    www.taxolegal.com


    Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


    www.customsindiaonline.com
    Home | Mission | Contact Us | Acknowledgements © 2009 Copyrights, All Rights Reserved. 
    Disclaimer Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order and other contents correctly, the access and circulation is subject to the condition that EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions. The Site is constantly updated and any or all of the contents are liable to be modified, altered, deleted or replaced. EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone whether directly or indirectly  due to any modification , alteration, addition, deletion or replacement of any of the contents.

    Copyright : Reproduction of news articles, photos, or any other content in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of  EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is prohibited.Do not copy contents of this site . All pages are protected by COPYSCAPE. Plagiarism will be detected by COPYSCAPE.