Small Consignment Transport Is Courier Service | Not GTA—CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

courier service classification CESTAT 2025
Case Details: Madhur Parcel Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. & C. Excise, Bhopal (2025) 31 Centax 84 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
  • Shri Z.U. Alvi, Adv., for the Appellant.
  • Ms Jaya Kumar, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant, engaged in the transportation of numerous small consignments for various clients, issued booking slips for each consignment after obtaining a standard undertaking that the ‘consignment does not contain personal mail, currency notes, jewellery, contraband etc.’. These goods were frequently delivered door-to-door, and each consignment was assigned a tracking number generated by a sister concern engaged in courier services.

The Appellant contended that such services constituted ‘courier service’ and not ‘goods transport agency service’ under the Finance Act, 1994, specifically invoking the definitions under Section 65(33) and Section 65(105)(f). The Department of Revenue, however, sought to classify the same under ‘goods transport agency service’, thereby subjecting the services to a different tax treatment. The matter was accordingly placed before the Delhi CESTAT.

CESTAT Held

The Delhi CESTAT held that the services provided by the Appellant were classifiable as ‘courier service’ and not as ‘goods transport agency service’ under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal observed that the issuance of booking slips, collection of standard declarations, door-to-door delivery, and use of tracking numbers aligned with the operational features of courier services. Referring to Sections 65(33) and 65(105)(f) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal concluded that the service conformed to the statutory definition of ‘courier service’. The classification under ‘goods transport agency service’ was therefore not sustainable.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
SC Dismisses Appeal, Upholds HC Order Limiting Cenvat Credit Use

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 17, 2025

Maintenance Reimbursements Not Part of Renting Service | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Construction Agreements With Landowners Are Works Contract | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Market Support Services to Foreign Entity Treated as Export: CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 10, 2025

Lease of Land for Port and Marine Activities Attracts Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 8, 2025

Services to Foreign Client for Market Promotion Qualify as Export | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 5, 2025

Installing Software With COA Stickers Is Sale—Not Service | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 5, 2025

SC Rules Freight Collected by Agents Not Taxable

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 30, 2025

Service Tax Demand Invalid When Trade Discounts Passed On | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 28, 2025

CGST Officers Can Pursue Pending Service Tax Matters | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 22, 2025