9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts required for adjudication of the present appeals,inter alia, are that the assessee was alleged to have rendered a host of services as given in the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 12.10.2010, had received payments from its clients which were alleged to be liable to Service Tax; that no Service Tax was paid on such payments received from their clients viz. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. BCCL') and M/s. Eastern Coal Fields Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. ECL') for the services rendered to them under the category of "Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earth Moving and Demolition Services" ('Site Formation Services' for short) effective from 16.06.1005 and "Mining of Mineral Oil or Gas Services" ('Mining Services' for short) effective from 01.06.2007 and also from M/s. Uranium Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. UCIL') under the category of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service"effective from 10.09.2004. 3.2.1 The Show Cause Notice reflects that intelligence was gathered by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), who thereafter has issued summons under Section 14 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing total liability of Service Tax during the period in dispute is prepared and enclosed as Annexure - 52 to the Show Cause Notice. 3.2.3 Accordingly, Service Tax of Rs. 1,67,88,903/- was proposed to be demanded along with applicable cesses as per Annexure - 52 for the period from June 2005 to August 2008. Out of the aboveproposed Service Tax, Service Tax of Rs. 70,87,866/- under the category of 'Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earth Moving and Demolition Service' was also proposed to be demanded and Service Tax of Rs. 83,91,412/- under the category of 'Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earth Moving and Demolition Service' proposed to be recovered and appropriated, along with applicable penalties and interest. 3.4 The assessee filed a detailed reply denying the above allegations and also on the legal grounds as to the very taxability itself prior to 01.06.2007 under Site Formation Services mainly on the ground that the execution of contract/work order was completed much prior to 01.06.2007. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.M. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. &Cus., Tirupathi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by hired HEMM. (v) Ref No. UCIL/TMD/MILL/CIVIL/TO/2006 dated 20th April, 2006 with M/s. UCIL for construction of Decanted Water Monitoring Pond and allied works at ETP area of Turamdih. 7.2 The agreements entered by the assessee with M/s. BCCL and M/s. ECL are for two different services viz., overburden removal and extraction and transportation of coal. Further, it is also a fact that in all the contracts with M/s. BCCL and M/s. ECL, which are mainly for excavation in benches by mechanical means in all kinds of soil/rock and thereafter winning/extraction of coal in benches including drilling and blasting; that the words "hiring of" have been used which in effect indicate that the scope of work is not for supplying of HEMM viz. pay loaders/dippers/Service Miners or other allied equipments, but for execution of the job, for which the payment is made not on the basis of supplying the equipment but on the quantum of job executed. Further, the above agreements also indicate that the contracts are essentially for overburden removal, excavation of earth moving. 7.3 At this juncture, we find it very useful to refer to the C.B.E.C. Circular in F. No. B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.07.2005 relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould only amount to Mining Services taxable under the category of Mining of Mineral Oil or Gas Services effective from 01.06.2007. The relevant portions of the order have been extracted by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Therefore, we are of the view that the ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the case on hand and accordingly, the demand on Site FormationServices that are dropped by the Adjudicating Authority, is upheld. 7.6 The Revenue has not been able to make out a case to dislodge the conclusion reached in the impugned order and therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner. 8. We also take on record the contentions of the Revenue that in respect of some of the contracts, the consideration was received later. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Vistar Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2013 (31) S.T.R. 129 (Del.) has inter alia held that the taxable event for Service Tax was the rendition of service, in the following words : "7. On going through the said instruction and particularly para 3 thereof it appears that the view of the respondents is that ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same would not suffice, more so in the case of a Government organization like M/s. UCIL. It is quite clear that the extraction of uranium ore is for the Union of India and the same is a restricted activity. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can we accept the contentions of the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue that the same would amount to an activity of commerce or industry. No doubt, the uranium ores are sold exclusively to the Department of Atomic Energy, Union of India, but that alone would not paint the character of commerce or industry. In this regard, we fully approve the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. 10. In view of the above, the above pleas of the Revenue cannot be entertained. 11.1 The assessee in its appeal has challenged the demand of Service Tax under the category of Mining Services. We note that though the Ld. Commissioner has accepted the contentions urged by the assessee, mainly that the contracts/work orders were executed prior to 1st June, 2007, but the authority has held that in some cases bills were raised after 01.06.2007, which has prompted the lower authority to sustain the demand in respect of the bills raised after 01.06.2007 sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
