9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019. 2. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the business of exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. For all the services rendered by the appellant herein for itself and on behalf of the other contracting parties, under the Joint Operation Agreement, service tax has been duly paid. While so, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 30.03.2016 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the production of oil service rendered by them should not be classified as "Mining Services" under Section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 or taxable service as the case may be inter alia to demand service tax, education cess etc., along with interest and penalty thereto. The appellant submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame, the appellant is before this court with this writ appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though personal hearing was granted to the appellant on 28.03.2017, immediately the order-in-original was not passed by the first respondent, but was passed two years thereafter i.e., on 29.05.2019. In the interregnum period, two circulars, namely Circular No.32/06/2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 and Circular No.35/ 2018-GST, dated 05.03.2018 were issued by the Ministry of Finance, as per which the demand raised by the first respondent is not sustainable against the appellant. However, the first respondent, while passing the order-in-original, failed to consider those two circulars. It is further submitted that Point N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed in favour of the appellant'. Stating so, the learned counsel sought to allow this writ appeal by setting aside the orders impugned herein as well as in the writ petition. 4. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Department would contend that the appellant entered into Production Sharing Contracts (PSC) and Joint Operation Agreements (JOA) with various parties. Such services rendered by the appellant, as operator, after 01.07.2012, are required to be classified under Mining Services under section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 as 'taxable services'. However, by suppressing the same, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent its reply dated 23.05.2016. Thereafter, an opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant on 28.03.2017, however, the order-in-original came to be passed by the first respondent confirming the levy of service tax, etc., but only on 29.05.2019. In the mean while, the Ministry of Finance has issued two circulars dated 12.02.2018 and 05.03.2018, which were in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant preferred WP.No.27161 of 2019, which was not considered by the learned Judge, which constrained them to file this writ appeal before this court. 7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that after an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellant on 23.08.2017, the first re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
