9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s auxiliary service', 'site formation and clearance service', 'mining service' and 'supply of tangible goods service' for the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10. 2. Vide impugned order, the original authority confirmed tax liability of Rs. 38,78,989 - in the category of 'mining service' amounting to Rs. 38,59,987 covering five work orders out of a demand of Rs. 38,63,652, Rs. 1,16,157 as provider of 'site formation and clearance service' in one work order while dropping demand of Rs. 29,62,779 relating to three work orders, and Rs. 3,244 as provider of 'supply of tangible goods service' in relation to one work order while dropping demand of Rs. 3,59,446 on two work orders. Demand in relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsofar as the stand of the tax authority is concerned. On perusal of the order furnished by Learned Counsel, we find this to be so. Likewise the demand of Rs. 6,80,245 is similarly situated. Accordingly, we set aside this portion of the demand in the impugned order. 5. Learned Counsel also pointed out that the demand in the category of 'mining service' for an amount of Rs. 7,47,013 pertains to work order issued by M/s PBA Infrastructure Ltd for a road project in MIHAN SEZ and is not covered in the show cause notice issued to assessee. We find this to be the correct factual position and, accordingly, hold that this demand in the impugned order is not sustainable. 6. The plea, rendered on behalf of the assessee, in relation to the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent category on the subsequent date does not preclude taxability under an existing head. The decision of the Tribunal in Vadehra Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Service Tax, New Delhi [2015 (39) STR 88 (Tri-Del)] was relied upon. It was also argued that the work order of M/s Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt Ltd involving tax liability of Rs. 1,25,700 had also been incorrectly held by the adjudicating authority to be 'transportation of goods' when the activity involved procurement of inputs. It is also contended that the activity rendered in connection with the work orders of M/s Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt Ltd involving tax of Rs. 3,37,009 and with M/s KK Earthmovers was not a contract for transportation. 8. Even if the work exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral head for an earlier period. We are, however, unable to assign relevance to the decision in relation to the present demand which pertains to taxing as 'business auxiliary service' which is a very broad description and Revenue has not been able to identify the specific description which would best fit the activity in the manner sought for in the show cause notice. Furthermore, the manner in which the other activities, i.e. 'business auxiliary service' and 'supply of tangible goods service' are not covered by 'transportation of goods service' has not been established by Revenue. We are, therefore, unable to find any justification for interfering with the demand that was dropped in the impugned order. 9. For the above reasons, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
