9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax, the amount paid as consideration for the iron ore extraction would be the amount leviable to service tax. The nature of taxes is entirely different; taxable events are different. The mines were owned by individuals who are partners of Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals. The right to extract/mine the ore and sell was given to Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals. Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals and all the partners constituting the partnership firm entered into a contract with the appellant and entrusted the work of mining of ore for a consideration of 64% of the ore that is extracted. In such a situation, when two parties viz. Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals and the appellant have treated themselves as two separate entities, obviously the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The activity undertaking by the appellant in terms of the above agreement dt. 26/03/2010 has been held to be taxable service falling under the category of mining of mineral, oil or gas service . As a result of such a view, demand for service tax of ₹ 12,38,99,236/- has been confirmed with interest and penalty also has been imposed under Finance Act, 1994. Show-cause notice was issued in this case on 05/07/2012. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the activity undertaken is that of manufacture of excisable goods falling under Central Excise Tariff Act classifiable under Chapter 26. He draws our attention to the Chapter 26 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (Tariff) and submits that iron ore of different cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Finance Act, 1994 excludes manufacture of excisable goods from purview of business auxiliary services and immuned from service tax. We do not think that this decision would be relevant to the present case before us. We have to take note of the fact that in that case, the same activity of packing, labeling, loading etc. were not specifically covered by a particular service category but the question before the Tribunal was whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax under cargo handling service or not. In that case, it was a composite activity of packing, labeling, loading and unloading of finished goods at the factory premises. It was also held that packing and labeling were the primary activities in that case. Under these circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and service receiver relationship in this case. We are unable to agree with this view. No doubt there are decisions saying that a partnership firm is an association of persons and therefore may not have an individual identity. However, when two entities entering to transactions treat themselves as two separate persons for the purpose of transactions between them, later on when tax is leviable if the transaction is considered, they cannot turn around and say that they are not different and are one and the same. In this case, M/s. Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals of whom the appellant is also a partner had the right of mining. The mines were owned by individuals who are partners of Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals. The right to extract/mine the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
