9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out by the appellant in the mining area has been correctly categorized as mining service w.e.f. 1.6.2007. The Department accordingly confirmed the tax liability on the appellant. However, the same activity was sought to be classified as “Site Formation and Clearance” , prior to that date. We find such proposition is legally not sustainable. Wrong quantification of taxable value - Held that: - the appellant’s claim needs to be cross verified by the jurisdictional officers for correctness. The claim of the appellant is that they have not received an amount of ₹ 37,69,684/- as a consideration for taxable service. The appellant’s liability as demanded under GTA service and Site formation & clearance service is not sustainable - the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us categories of taxable service. They have discharged an amount of ₹ 55,30,529/- towards service tax demand for the relevant period. A part of this amount has been paid during the course of investigation. They are not contesting the already paid service tax. 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the dispute is relating to three components viz. (a) tax liability under the category of GTA Services amounting to ₹ 21,54,622/-, (b) service tax liabilility under the category of Site formation and clearance for the period prior to 1.6.2007 of ₹ 4,66,993/- and; (c) the excess demand of service tax of ₹ 4,36,049/- on account of wrong valuation. This excess is due to calculation of service tax liability based on the bills rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity for tax under GTA service, we notice while the demand has been made under GTA, the confirmation of tax liability has been made under the new category of Cargo Handling Service . This confirmation is legally not sustainable. We also note that on the transport of gypsum, the owner of the mines, M/s. FCI have paid service tax and the certificate to that effect has been produced by the appellant. If required, the jurisdictional officer can call for document for necessary verification to confirm the facts. In any case, there will be no liability on the appellant on this category. 9. We note that the appellants are engaged in various activities in terms of the contract with mine owner. Admittedly, extraction of gypsum is one of the activi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
