9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . During the period April, 2005 to March 2012, the Appellants had undertaken work of extraction of mineral ore, transport, and other related activities in Goa and rendered services to M/s. Rajaram Bandekar (Sirgao) Mines Private Limited (RBSM) and others. Works undertaken included ripping, dozing and leveling, road work, road maintenance; Loading hauling and unloading of overburden to designated waste dumps; Transport of ore and overburden by tipper trucks of varying capacities, ore stacking, waste dump management, water spraying, road maintenance and allied ancillary works thereto including local transportation. They were sole rising agents for M/s Ananth V. Sarmalkar. RBSM retained the service tax component from the payments made to the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants submitted they replied to the aforementioned Show Cause Notice vide their letters dated 22.03.2013 and 12.12.2013. In addition to the above, the appellants reiterated the submissions during personal hearings on 11.11.2013 and 13.10.2014. In spite of the above, the Learned Commissioner didn't accept the plea of the Appellant and passed impugned order. A summary of the issues involved in the case and the position taken by the Appellants in respect of the contentions made in the Show Cause Notice is given here under. Issue Involved Period Amount demanded Rs Position taken by the appellants in the reply Service tax collected and alleged as not paid April, 2005 to March 2007 1,74,38,562 The amount is demanded beyond even extended p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve reiterated the findings of the OIO. 5. We find that the Appellants contention are mainly that regarding the demand of Service Tax for the period 2005-2007, the Show Cause Notice does not classify the service rendered by them. However, the Commissioner has categorized the same under "business auxiliary services" and demanded duty under Section 73A. The Appellants contended that Section 11D is applicable only in the following cases. (i) The person has collected any amount in excess of duty assessed or determined and paid on excisable goods or (ii) The person has collected any amount as representing duty of excise on any excisable goods which are wholly exempt or chargeable to nil rate of duty from any person in any manner The Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir customers. However, the Learned Commissioner finds that the Appellants have not produced any evidence to support their claims. The Appellants submitted that the classification of difference services is incorrect; value has not been taken correctly; tax credit was not granted and that if the errors were rectified there would be no tax liability. The Appellants submitted that some of the services rendered by them come under site formation, coal cutting have come into effect from 16.06.2005 and 01.06.2007; some of the activities undertaken by them come under cargo handling service and not as mining service; under GTA services there is an exemption granted for transport charges upto Rs. 1500/trip. We find that Commissioner has not given an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
