Order date – 27 September 2022

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s. Singhania & Sons Private Limited, is engaged in the business of export of iron ore fines and import of industrial chemicals and distribution thereof, all across India.
• The Department contended that an amount of Rs.2,80,659/- has been erroneously refunded to the Appellant.
• The Appellant argued that the services received by the Appellant from AB Commercial was for ‘GTA’ and not ‘Cargo Handling Service’ as alleged in the instant proceedings and therefore the refund claim of Rs.2,22,119/- was correctly allowed to the Appellant vide Order-in-Original dated 23.09.2010, which was later reversed by the appellant authorities.
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether the disallowance of refund claim amounting to Rs.2,22,119/- in respect of invoices issued by AB Commercial for transportation of iron ore fines would qualify under ‘GTA’ or ‘Cargo Handling Services?

Order – 

• Tribunal observed that under the Finance Act, 1994, ‘Cargo Handling Service’ does not include, handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods.
• The tribunal relied on Rungta Projects Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Allahabad [2018] (CESTAT Allahabad) in which it was held that according to Circular No.104/7/2008-ST dated 06.08.2008 transportation of coal was the essential service provided by the assessee and the activity of loading and unloading of coal was instantly for transportation and therefore service rendered by the assessee did not fall within the definition of ‘Cargo Handling Service’.
• Therefore, the impugned orders couldn’t be sustained and was accordingly set aside.
• Appeal allowed.