9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem on a composite contract basis. The department undertook a detailed investigation and issued show cause notice on 10.03.2011 for the period 11.08.2006 to 18.11.2009 on the ground that upto 30.06.2007, the appellant is required to pay Service Tax under different headings like 'Cargo Handling Services', 'Site Formation Services' and after 01.07.2007 under 'Mining Services'. The appellant after receipt of the show cause notice admitted that from 01.07.2007, they are liable to pay Service Tax under the heading of 'Mining Service' and calculated and paid Rs.18,10,214/- as Service Tax and Rs.36,203/- as Education Cess and Rs.18,101/- as SHE Cess. They also paid the interest of Rs.4,35,975/- towards the same. The adjudicating authority has conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire demand is on account of 'Mining Service'. Therefore, he submits that the Department could not have confirmed their demands under different headings when they themselves have quantified the demand for the period 01.06.2007 onwards under 'Mining Services'. He also takes us through Para 9 of the Order-in-Appeal wherein it is noted that on similar issues the Tribunals have held that a composite contract cannot be vivisected into 'Site Formation' and 'Cargo Handling Services' in order to fasten the Service Tax liability on the assesse. In view of these submissions, he submits that the appeal is required to be allowed on merits. 3. The Ld.AR reiterates the detailed findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that only after detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Services' w.e.f. 01.06.2007, we hold that the demand for the earlier period has been made only to fasten excess Service Tax demand on the appellant. 6. We have also gone through the case law cited by the appellant. In the case of M. Ramkrishna Reddy Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Tirupathi [2009 (13) S.T.R. 661 (Tri.-Bang.)], the Tribunal has clearly held that when there is a composite contract, the same cannot be vivisected in order to confirm the demand of Service Tax. Similarly in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus Vs. B.K.Thakkar [2008 (9) S.T.R. 542 (Tri.-Kol.)], the Tribunal has held that such vivisection is not permissible. Hence, we allow the Appeal on merits. 7. On going through the Order-in-Appeal we find that the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
