Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

August 2013

2013 (30) STR 668 (Tri-Del) Dilip Construction vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Internal movement of iron ore ‘within’ mining
area – no movement of cargo outside mining area – Held, not classifiable
under “Cargo Handling Service”

Facts:
The
Appellant was engaged in the activity of movement and transportation of
iron ore within the mining area on which the revenue proposed to levy
tax under the category of “Cargo Handling Service”.

Held:
For
an activity to fall under cargo handling service, there should be
movement of cargo from one place to another and not just internal
movement within the mining area. There was no evidence to prove that
handling service was outside the mining area. When the factual evidence
demonstrated movement of the excavated iron within the mining area from
one place to another, such operation was not a cargo handling service.
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Related Party Disclosures-AS 18

EAC Opinion – Determination of Normal capacity for the purpose of allocation of Fixed Overheads of cost of inventories and inclusion of various costs in the valuations of Inventories.