TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Authority held that the service provided by them is "Mining Services" for which the respondent is liable to pay the service tax, the respondent has immediately paid the service tax along with penalty at the rate of 25% - Under the circumstances and considering section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which is reproduced hereinabove, the learned CESTAT has rightly quashed and set aside the penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. No question of law much less substantial question of law arise in the present appeals - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 1121 of 2013, 1122 of 2013 with Civil Application No. 713 of 2013, 714 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2013 - Mr. M.R. Shah and Mr. R.P. Dholaria, JJ. Ms. Sejal K. Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd rigs for their clients all over the world. In India, their clients are M/s. ONGC, Oil India, Essar Oil, GSPC Ltd., Niko Resources Ltd. etc. Therefore, for rendering drilling services to GSPC Ltd and Niko Resources Ltd., they have opened their office at Alkapuri, Vadodara and took service tax registration under Supply of Tangible Goods Service which became taxable w.e.f.16.05.2008 vide sub-clause (zzzj) of section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, looking to their expertise and field of operations, it appears to the Adjudicating Authority that the services rendered by them appears to be relating to mining of oil or gas which became taxable w.e.f. 1.1.2007 as Mining of Minerals, Oil or Gas service vide sub-clause (zzzy) of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; (v) the penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended; (vi) the late fees should not be imposed upon them under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7(c) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 4. By the said show-cause notice dated 28.06.2012, the Finance Manager of respondent was also called upon to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said show-cause notice came to be adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Vadodara - I and by order dated 11.10.2012, the Adjudicating Authority passed Order-in-Original confirming the demand for recovery of service tax as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial questions of law. 7. Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned CESTAT has materially erred in deleting the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. It is submitted by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - revenue that despite the specific mention in respective contracts that they are required to do mining work also, with mala fide intention the respondent did not claim and/or classify the services provided by them as Mining Services liable and/or subjected to service taxes even for the period prior to 16.05.2008. It is submitted that the same is deliberate on the part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the CESTAT as well as Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 13. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the respondent was under bona fide impression that the activity undertaken by them was only a pre-mining and exploration activity and cannot be covered under Mining Services. After adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority did not agree with the same and classify the services provided by the respondent as Mining Services before 16.05.2008 and held that the respondent was liable to pay service tax on services provided by them from 1.6.2007 to 31.03.2008. It is not in dispute that immediately on adjudication and within the stipulated time provided in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|