2018 (1) TMI 1498 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - mining services or not - period July 2006 to December 2006 and January 2007 to April 2007 - It is the case of the appellant mining services during the relevant period but the contention of the Revenue is that the services would fall geological geophysical activities of excavation over-burden removal etc. - HELD THAT - On specific query from the Bench whether there was any stay by the Apex Court on these two matters against order passed by the Tribunal it is informed by the Learned Counsel that there is no stay. Since there is no stay against the order passed by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case on an identical issue we find there is no reason for this bench to deviate from such a view already taken. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Service tax demand for mining services for a specific period.
2. Interpretation of services falling under mining services category.
3. Precedent set by earlier judgment favoring the appellant.
4. Appeal by Revenue to the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. Existence of stay by the Apex Court on the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with two appeals challenging Order-in-original No. 01/2008 and Order-in-original No. 07/2008 regarding service tax demand on mining services for the period July 2006 to April 2007.

2. The appellant claimed the services rendered fell under mining services, while the Revenue argued they were geological or geophysical activities. The appellant cited a previous favorable decision by the Bench supporting their position, which classified the services as mining services taxable from 1-6-2007.

3. The Revenue had appealed the earlier decision to the Hon'ble Apex Court, which admitted the appeal. However, no stay was issued by the Apex Court against the Tribunal's order in the appellant's case on the same issue. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its previous ruling in the absence of a stay.

4. Relying on the precedent and absence of a stay, the Tribunal held that the impugned orders were unsustainable and set them aside, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant. The decision was made following the established ratio and in line with the earlier judgment.

5. The judgment emphasizes the importance of consistency in decisions and adherence to established legal principles, especially when no stay has been issued by a higher court. The Tribunal's decision reflects the application of legal precedent and the significance of prior rulings in determining the outcome of similar cases.