Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 827 - CESTAT NEW DELHISite Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition Service - liability of tax - contracts executed with 5 other companies - Held that: - It appears that these companies have placed orders for supply of explosives and accessories and there is no service element in the work order - Amount received by them in respect of supply of explosives, without involving rendering of service in respect of various contracts, cannot be subjected to service tax levy, without individually examining and appreciating the scope of supply/ work order. This has to be done by the Original Authority to correctly determine the service tax liability of the appellant - matter on remand. Benefit of N/N. 17/2005- ST dated 16/06/2005 - services with reference to drilling and blasting of rocks - Held that: - the quarrying of stone is done away from construction of road and it is only to produce raw material for road laying. The activity itself is not in the course of construction of road. However, the appellants claimed that in case of M/s R.K. Transport, they have undertaken the road cutting work themselves. This requires verification by the Original Authority, as the appellants produced only a certificate from M/s R.K. Transport - matter on remand. Transaction with M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. - sale or service? - Held that: - the claim of the appellant that the activity involved is construction of road, is not acceptable in view of the reasons recorded earlier in this order. We also find no infirmity in the findings by the Original Authority in borrowing the definition of “mine” and “mining” from Mines Act, 1952 and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952/1957 - demand upheld. Regarding the transactions with M/s Saumya Mining Ltd., the appellants contested the tax calculation on the ground that part of the consideration were received beyond the 5 year period from the date of show cause notice and is accordingly hit by time bar. This requires cross verification by the Original Authority. Regarding supply of tangible goods, we find that the appellant’s plea that they have provided van for transportation charges and, as such, cannot be considered as supply of tangible goods has force - since other issues are remanded, this issue will also be remanded for verification. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|