2018 (2) TMI 687 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - agreement with M/s. MALCO to carry out mining services - Business Auxiliary Services or mining services - Held that - This Tribunal in the respondent s own case, M/s. Thirumala Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2018 (2) TMI 288 - CESTAT CHENNAI has set aside the demand for the earlier period holding that activity of loading and transportation of limestone and rejects from mine head to crushing premises under taken within mining area and covered by Mines Act, 1952 would not be taxable under Business Auxiliary Service - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tax liability on mining services categorized as business auxiliary service.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the tax liability of a company engaged in mining services, specifically related to activities such as excavation, blasting, and transportation. The Department contended that these services fell under business auxiliary service, leading to a tax liability of ?1,95,426 along with penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, stating that the activities were indeed part of mining operations. The Department appealed this decision.

During the proceedings, the Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The Department reiterated its grounds of appeal, emphasizing the classification of the services as business auxiliary. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel referred to previous judgments to support their stance that the activities in question were integral to mining operations and not taxable under business auxiliary service.

The Tribunal examined the precedents cited by the respondent's counsel, including a previous decision in the respondent's own case where the demand was set aside as the activities were deemed to be part of mining operations. Additionally, reference was made to a Tribunal decision and High Court judgment that supported the classification of similar services as falling under mining activities, not business auxiliary services.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the issue at hand was conclusively addressed by its prior decisions and the judgments from higher courts presented by the respondent's counsel. Citing the precedent set in the respondent's earlier case, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Department's appeal, thereby confirming that the services provided by the company were indeed part of mining activities and not subject to tax under business auxiliary service.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's ruling in this case reaffirmed the classification of the services in question as mining activities based on established precedents and legal interpretations, highlighting the importance of consistent application of tax laws and reliance on relevant judicial decisions to determine tax liabilities accurately.