2018 (3) TMI 2001 - SCH - Service Tax

Classification of services - Site Formation, Clearance, Excavation, Earthmoving and Demolition Services - activities of excavation and removal of overburden/waste rock/secondary ore by the assessee at the mines - period from 16-6-2005 to 30-11-2007 - HELD THAT - The respondent, fairly accepts that insofar as this issue is concerned, it is yet to be decided. Valuation of the service tax - HELD THAT - The issue is covered by judgment in COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT , and decided in favour of the respondent.

Summary

Issues:
1. Coverage of the respondent under the Service Tax Act
2. Valuation of the service tax

Coverage of the respondent under the Service Tax Act:
In Civil Appeal No. 16991 of 2017, two issues were raised. The first issue involved determining whether the respondent's activities of excavation and removal of overburden/waste rock/secondary ore at the mines of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. between 16-6-2005 to 30-11-2007 fell under the category of 'Site Formation, Clearance, Excavation, Earthmoving and Demolition Services' under Section 65(97a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Department argued for the coverage of the respondent under the Service Tax Act for these activities. However, Mr. Lakshmikumaran, the Learned Counsel for the respondent, acknowledged that this issue was yet to be decided.

Valuation of the service tax:
The second issue in Civil Appeal No. 16991 of 2017 concerned the valuation of the service tax. This issue had already been addressed in a previous judgment dated 19th February, 2018, in the case of 'Commissioner of Service Tax etc. v. M/s. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 1335-1358 of 2015]', where the decision was rendered in favor of the respondent. Consequently, the judgment on the valuation of the service tax was already settled in a previous case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in Civil Appeal Nos. 4965-4966 of 2016 as the question raised was already covered by a previous judgment. For Civil Appeal No. 16991 of 2017, the first issue regarding the coverage of the respondent under the Service Tax Act was left pending for decision, while the second issue on the valuation of the service tax had been resolved in favor of the respondent based on a previous judgment. The Court ordered the first issue to be tagged along with another case for further consideration.