Case Details: Singh Construction & Co. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (2025) 27 Centax 284 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dilip Gupta & Ms Hemambika R. Priya, Member (J)
- Shri A.K. Batra, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant.
- Shri Ravi Kapoor, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in coal transportation using tipping trucks, provided incidental loading and unloading services. The Department issued a show cause notice, classifying the services under ‘Cargo Handling Services’ and demanding service tax under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee challenged this before the Tribunal, arguing that transportation was the primary service and loading/unloading was merely incidental. Reference was made to a CBIC circular clarifying that ‘Cargo Handling Services’ require a specialized agency. The Department contended that loading/unloading rendered the service a composite activity, justifying the tax demand under pre-2012 provisions.
CESTAT Held
The Tribunal held that transportation with incidental loading/unloading falls under ‘Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services’, not ‘Cargo Handling Services’. Citing the CBIC circular, it emphasized that ‘Cargo Handling Services’ require a specialized agency. It ruled that incidental handling does not alter classification and observed that the show cause notice incorrectly applied pre-2012 classification-based provisions, even though the period in question fell under the post-2012 Negative List regime, where all services were taxable by default unless specifically exempted or covered under the Negative list. Referring to precedent, the Tribunal set aside the tax demand.
List of Cases Cited
- Aneja Property Dealer v. Commissioner — 2009 (13) S.T.R. 266 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 3.1, 9.4]
- Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331 (Tribunal-LB) — Relied on [Paras 3.1, 9.2, 9.4]
- Commissioner v. Singh Transporters — 2012 (27) S.T.R. 488 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 7, 9.4]
- Deputy Commissioner v. Sushil & Company — 2016 (42) S.T.R. 625 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 6, 7, 9.4]
- Gautham Khona v. Commissioner — 2014-TIOL-2435-CESTAT-Bang — Relied on [Paras 3, 9.4]
- Hira Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2012 (28) S.T.R. 23 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 3, 9.4]
- Mahakoshal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2007 (6) S.T.R. 148 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 3.1, 9.3]
- N.C. Paul & Company v. Commissioner — 2020 (41) G.S.T.L. 494 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 7, 9.4]
- Viking Tours & Travels v. Commissioner — 2011 (22) S.T.R. 69 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 3.1, 9.4]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. B11/1/2002-TRU, dated 1-8-2002 [Paras 3, 6]
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 104/7/2008-S.T., dated 6-8-2008 [Para 8]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Para 3.2]
- Notification No. 26/2012, dated 20-6-2012 [Para 3.2]
