2015 (11) TMI 566 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Mining service - appellant transported the mineral (coal) from pithead area to the Railway siding within the Coalfield premises - Held that - Prima facie, the conclusion by the Commissioner that the appellant had provided mining service is wholly inconsistent with the Scheme of Finance Act, 1994, in particular, in the context of the Transport of Goods by Road and mining services enumerated as distinct services. We also notice that in an identical fact situation, the Tribunal by the interim order dated 30.6.2015 granted waiver in full and stayed all further proceedings for recovery of the assessed liability pursuant to the order impugned - we grant waiver in full and stay all further proceedings for recovery of the assessed, pending disposal of the appeal. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant provided taxable mining service or transport of goods by road.
2. Validity of the service tax demand imposed by the Commissioner.
3. Granting of waiver and stay of recovery proceedings by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was determining whether the services provided by the appellant constituted taxable mining service or fell under the category of Transport of Goods by Road. The Commissioner had confirmed a service tax demand on the appellant for providing services related to transporting coal from a pithead area to a Railway siding. The appellant argued that their services were more aligned with the Transport of Goods by Road, which is a distinct taxable service. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's conclusion inconsistent with the Finance Act, 1994, especially concerning the differentiation between mining services and transport services. The Tribunal noted a similar case where waiver was granted, indicating a need for further examination.

2. The second issue revolved around the validity of the service tax demand imposed by the Commissioner. The impugned order confirmed a substantial service tax demand on the appellant, along with interest and penalties. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the facts and legal provisions, found the Commissioner's decision questionable and granted a waiver in full. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a more detailed analysis of the nature of services provided by the appellant before confirming such a demand.

3. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the issue of granting waiver and staying the recovery proceedings. Citing a previous interim order where waiver was granted and proceedings stayed in a similar case, the Tribunal decided to follow a similar approach in this instance. The Tribunal granted a full waiver and stayed all further proceedings for the recovery of the assessed amount pending the disposal of the appeal. This decision aimed to provide relief to the appellant and ensure a fair and thorough examination of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on clarifying the nature of services provided by the appellant, questioning the validity of the service tax demand, and ultimately granting a waiver and stay of recovery proceedings to facilitate a more detailed review of the case.