2017 (12) TMI 1380 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Site formation services or mining services - scope of work - Held that - The scope of work mentioned covers providing all equipment, manpower, tools and tackles as stated under Clause 8 of this LOI. Admittedly, the appellants have processed excavated boulders to required size for use by the clients. The contract indicates that it is part of the Rajasthan Road Project Package RJ-7 - it is well settled position that such type of contracts were there is an extraction or raising of ore or mineral, the same cannot be considered as site formation service. In the present case, there is an excavation or extraction of boulders for further process. Regarding tax liability post 1.6.2007 under category of mining service , the appellants did undertake the process of excavating the boulders. However, substantially, there are further process involved on such excavation to make fit for client - the essence of the contract is to supply the required quantity of the specified size bounders to the client as per required quantity per day. As such, these are more properly covered under the tax entry Business Auxiliary Service . The scope of the term manufacture has no direct relevance to the issue at hand. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Service tax liability under "site formation services" and "mining services" for the period March 2006 to June 2009.
2. Applicability of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78.
3. Whether the demand is barred by limitation.
4. Interpretation of the contract dated 9.1.2006 with the client.
5. Classification of services provided under the contract.
6. Tax liability post 1.6.2007 under "mining services."
7. Relevance of previous legal decisions in determining tax liability.
8. Applicability of Business Auxiliary Service category.
9. Comparison with the decision in Arihant Marbles & Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding service tax liability under "site formation services" and "mining services" for the period March 2006 to June 2009. The Original Authority held the appellant liable for service tax under these categories and imposed penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78.

2. The appellant contended that the demand was barred by limitation as all necessary information was provided to the department in 2008. They relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Modipon Fibre Company to support their argument.

3. The interpretation of the contract dated 9.1.2006 was crucial in determining the nature of services provided. The appellant argued that the contract involved production or processing of goods for the client, which should not be taxed under "site formation" or "mining" services.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the contract and found that the services provided by the appellant were more aligned with Business Auxiliary Services rather than "mining services" post 1.6.2007. The contract specified the production of boulders for road construction, indicating a different nature of service.

5. Previous legal decisions cited by both parties were considered in determining the tax liability under different service categories. The Tribunal found that the appellant's services were more appropriately classified under Business Auxiliary Services based on the contract terms and activities performed.

6. The Tribunal also distinguished the present case from the decision in Arihant Marbles & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that the scope of the term "manufacture" was not directly relevant to the issue at hand. The focus was on whether the services provided constituted production or processing of goods for the client.

7. Based on the analysis and discussions, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable on merit. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

← Previous Next →