The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excavation, loading, transportation and unloading of limestone undertaken as an integrated part of mining operations cannot be classified as “Cargo Handling Service”.

The bench of Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) sets aside ₹90.30 lakh service tax demand and held that an unchanged activity cannot acquire a different tax character merely because the specific entry for mining service had not yet been introduced.

The impugned order had confirmed the service tax demand along with applicable interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, under the category of Cargo Handling Service. The amount already paid by the assessee under Mining Service had been appropriated against the demand.

Buy Now: Service Tax E-Magazine – August 2026

The appellant/assessee was engaged by Madras Cements Ltd. to carry out excavation, loading, transportation and unloading of limestone. The extracted limestone was transported from the mine face to a crusher located within the mining lease area.

When the taxable category of “Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Service” was introduced with effect from June 1, 2007, the appellant obtained service tax registration and began paying service tax under that category.

The department, however, issued a show cause notice on March 25, 2010, proposing to classify the activities performed between February 2005 and December 2009 as Cargo Handling Service. The notice sought recovery of service tax, interest and penalties by invoking the extended limitation period.

The demand was initially confirmed. In an earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The adjudicating authority was specifically directed to examine whether activities accepted as Mining Service from June 1, 2007 could be classified as Cargo Handling Service for the preceding period.

Following the remand, the Commissioner once again confirmed the demand under Cargo Handling Service, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

The appellant contended that the contract was essentially and predominantly a mining contract. Excavation of limestone and its subsequent loading, transportation within the mine and unloading at the crusher were stated to be integral and inseparable parts of the mining operation.

It was argued that the appellant had not been independently engaged to handle limestone as cargo in the commercial sense contemplated under the taxable category of Cargo Handling Service.

The appellant further maintained that Mining Service was itself brought within the service tax net only from June 1, 2007. Activities possessing the essential character of mining, it submitted, could not be retrospectively fitted into an earlier taxable category to impose service tax for the period before the specific mining service entry came into force.

On limitation, the appellant submitted that it had voluntarily obtained registration immediately after the introduction of Mining Service and had paid substantial service tax under that category. Consequently, there was no suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement with an intention to evade tax.

The department defended the adjudication order, contending that the loading, transportation and unloading of limestone satisfied the requirements of Cargo Handling Service.

Examining the contractual operations, the Tribunal noted that the appellant performed an integrated series of activities beginning with the excavation of limestone and extending to its loading, transportation from the mine face and unloading at the crusher within the mining area.

The loading and transportation activities were not provided independently or separately from the mining operation. They were incidental and integral to the principal activity of extracting and moving the mineral within the mine.

The Bench observed that Cargo Handling Service contemplates the handling of cargo “as cargo”. Merely because goods are loaded, unloaded or moved during the performance of another principal service, the entire composite activity does not automatically fall under Cargo Handling Service.

According to the Tribunal, the real nature and dominant character of the contract must be examined before determining its classification.

The departmental clarification issued when Cargo Handling Service was introduced also indicated that the levy was principally intended to cover cargo-handling agencies and operations undertaken in relation to cargo meant for transportation.

In the present case, the appellant was not independently engaged in packing, unpacking or handling limestone for its transportation as cargo. The movement of limestone within the mining area was a necessary component of the mining operation itself.

The Tribunal observed that integrated mining operations could not be “vivisected” to classify incidental loading and transportation separately as Cargo Handling Service.

The Bench found considerable force in the appellant’s reliance on the introduction of the specific taxable entry for Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Service with effect from June 1, 2007.

It noted that the Revenue itself had accepted the appellant’s activities as Mining Service after that date and that service tax had been paid accordingly. No material change in the nature of the activities performed before and after June 1, 2007 was demonstrated before the Tribunal.

“Once the essential character of the activity is found to be mining, the mere fact that excavation necessarily involves loading and movement of the extracted mineral cannot convert it into Cargo Handling Service for the earlier period,” the Bench observed.

The classification of a composite activity, the Tribunal added, could not be determined by isolating one or two incidental elements from the complete contractual obligation.

Relying on the principle recognised by the Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners’ Association v. Union of India, the Bench noted that where a distinct service is specifically brought within the tax net from a particular date, it ordinarily cannot be taxed under another general entry for an earlier period in the absence of a clear legislative mandate.

The Tribunal consequently held that the demand raised under Cargo Handling Service in respect of the appellant’s mining operations could not be sustained.

The Bench also found that the adjudicating authority had failed to satisfactorily address the inconsistency specifically identified in the earlier remand order.

The central question was how the very same contractual activities, accepted as Mining Service from June 1, 2007, could be treated as Cargo Handling Service for the earlier period despite there being no change in their nature or scope.

“If the nature and scope of the contract remained unchanged, the activities could not acquire a completely different character merely because the specific taxable entry of Mining Service had not yet been introduced,” the Tribunal said.

The Bench further emphasised that the show cause notice had specifically proposed the demand under Cargo Handling Service. The demand could not subsequently be sustained under a different taxable category on the ground that the operations might otherwise fall within Mining Service.

It reiterated the settled legal principle that an adjudication order cannot travel beyond the allegations and classification proposed in the show cause notice.

The Tribunal separately accepted the appellant’s objection to the invocation of the extended limitation period.

It noted that the appellant’s statement had been recorded as early as August 2, 2007, whereas the show cause notice was issued only on March 25, 2010. The appellant had also obtained registration after the introduction of Mining Service and had paid service tax under that category.

These facts, according to the Bench, did not support an allegation of deliberate suppression with the intention to evade payment of service tax.

The dispute was essentially concerned with the classification of a composite mining activity. The existence of a large number of judicial decisions on the issue itself demonstrated that the matter was capable of more than one interpretation.

In the absence of a positive act establishing an intention to evade tax, the extended period could not be invoked merely by alleging suppression. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise in support of this conclusion.

CESTAT ultimately held that the excavation, loading, transportation and unloading of limestone undertaken by the appellant as an integral part of mining operations could not be classified as Cargo Handling Service.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Conflicting Views on Sub-Contractor’s Service Tax Liability Bar Extended Limitation: CESTAT