9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Service Tax Appeal No.850/2012 (DB) - Final Order No. 58201/2017 - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as contracts relating to mining activities . There were four contracts, three of them are not at all connected to excavation or mining. At the outset, he objected to the finding of the Original Authority without giving separate reasons for different contracts. All the three contracts, which were not considered were with reference to cement transportation work, machinery hire work and road cutting work , which are different, independent contracts though with the same client. 3. Regarding the main demand, which arose with reference to contract dated 9.1.2006 with HCCL, it is submitted that the contract is composite and the scope of work starts from mobilization of equipments and man power, removing of top vegetation, over burden, drilli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the terms of the contracts are very clear that the work involves both site formation by way of clearing over overburden, vegetation.etc. Thereafter, there is a process of mining of mineral in the form of boulders. As such, he justified the demand under both the categories of taxable services. Further, regarding limitation, he supported the findings of the Original Authority stating that the details were taken on analyzed by the Revenue, not disclosed by the appellant on their own. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. Admittedly, the appellants entered into different contracts with the client, HCCL. The present order only dealt with a main contract dated 9.1.2006. No findings were recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered as site formation service. In the present case, there is an excavation or extraction of boulders for further process. 9. Regarding tax liability post 1.6.2007 under category of mining service , we note that 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. These responsibilities are mandated upon the appellants in terms of the contract. The specification of the type of boulders to be supplied along with quantity is also mentioned in the agreement. The product produced for process by the appellant by way of required size of boulders is intended for road project. It is clear that such process cannot be calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
