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.
