Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1429 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid wrongly - Classification of services - mining services - service tax paid erroneously for the period 01.06.2007 to 15.05.2008 - supply of tangible goods service - Revenue have argued that the activity carried out by Aban was not merely post-production activity and that the same would require to be brought under the fold of “mining service” and that service tax was therefore correctly paid by Aban - time limitation - Held that:- The expert opinion had been produced by the respondent from independent sources, namely, from three Professors of the Indian School of Mines, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Dhanbad, wherein inter alia, it had been opined that the impugned floating production system is not capable of carrying out any drilling or work-over operations; that they are exclusively used only for post-production operations; therefore activity of the contractor is only post-mining. In the Grounds of Appeal, the Revenue have contended that the said technical opinion is not acceptable and that the activity cannot be called post-production activity. However, no evidence or technical reasoning has been put forth by Revenue to support their non-acceptance of the expert opinion produced by the respondent. Nor has the department come forth with any counter expert opinion from another independent and credible authority. Indubitably, the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad is a National Institute of repute, and, independent opinion given by the three Professors of the Department of Petroleum Engineering of that Institute deserves to be given respect and credibility, unless that opinion is contradicted by another expert authority of equal standing, which is not the case here - there is no infirmity in the LAA accepting the expert opinion submitted by the respondent to assist in his conclusions that the activity of supply of floating rigs by Aban would be covered under the category of “supply of tangible goods service” and that therefore there is no liability to pay service tax for the said supply of floating rigs during the disputed period. The certificates issued by Aban and by CPCL as also the agreement between CPCL and the respondent, the invoices issued by respondents to CPCL, which have been submitted by the Ld. Counsel in the course of arguments all serve to indicate that unjust enrichment is not applicable in the instant case and that price fixation is beyond the control of respondent and further that the invoices raised by respondents to CPCL do not contain any element of service tax nor whether any separate invoices raised for services tax. This being so, no infirmity is found in the same conclusions arrived at by LAA in para 6.1 of the impugned order. Once the activity is found to be falling within the fold of supply of tangible goods service, the consequential finding would only be that said tax was collected without authority of law - the Ld. counsel for respondent is correct in his assertion on the case laws relied upon by him to argue that limitation period of one year is not applicable in the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|