TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-ST dated 05.10.2015 - Held that:- The Revenue could not satisfactorily establish that the transactions in the present appeal are not covered by the said clarification dated 05.10.2015 issued by CBEC. Further, Revenue did not contradict the finding of the original authority that same service has been subjected to payment of service tax treating the same as GTA Service - Appeal dismissed - decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Revenue against Order-In-Original No.02/Commr/VNS/2017 dated 05.10.2017 passed by Commissioner Central Excise G.S.T. Commissionerate, Varanasi. 3. Brief fact of the case are that the respondents were engaged in providing services to Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) India Glycols Limited (IGL) by way of transportation of coal through contractors tipping trucks including loading of coal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Tax under reverse charge mechanism. They further submitted that the activity was shifting of coal from one place to another within the mining area of NCL and the service included transportation of coal in contractor‟s tipping trucks from the coal stockyard to Coal Handling Plant situated within the main premises of NCL and therefore, they contended that service provided by them was ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.10.2017, Revenue is before this Tribunal 4. Heard the learned A.R. for revenue who has submitted that contention of revenue is that the contract is divisible and it is not a composite contract and therefore adjudicating authority should have levied service tax on loading and unloading part of the contract. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for respondent who has submitted that the respondents w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the submissions from both the sides and after going through the joint statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed by revenue, we find that revenue could not satisfactorily establish that the transactions in the present appeal are not covered by the said clarification dated 05.10.2015 issued by CBEC. Further, revenue did not contradict the finding of the original authority that same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
