TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to by the first respondent, while passing the order dated 29.05.2019. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to this court to provide one more opportunity to the appellant to substantiate their case with supportive documentary evidence before the first respondent, instead of filing an appeal to the CESTAT, as directed by the learned Judge. This court finds some bonafide in the contention so raised on the side of the appellant. The learned Judge, in the order impugned herein, categorically stated that before passing of the order-in-original, two circulars were issued by the Ministry of Finance and the same were not considered by the first respondent, however, he directed the appellant to file statutory appeal by raising all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice dated 30.03.2016 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the production of oil service rendered by them should not be classified as Mining Services under Section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 or taxable service as the case may be inter alia to demand service tax, education cess etc., along with interest and penalty thereto. The appellant submitted their reply dated 23.05.2016, pursuant to which an opportunity of hearing was granted to them on 28.03.2017. Thereafter, the first respondent passed an order-in-original dated 29.05.2019, classifying the production of oil service rendered by the appellant as mining service and consequently demanding education cess, higher secondary education cess toge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod, two circulars, namely Circular No.32/06/2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 and Circular No.35/ 2018-GST, dated 05.03.2018 were issued by the Ministry of Finance, as per which the demand raised by the first respondent is not sustainable against the appellant. However, the first respondent, while passing the order-in-original, failed to consider those two circulars. It is further submitted that Point No.6 of the Circular No. 32/ 06/ 2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 clarified the levy of service tax in respect of cost production , which proves that such cost production is not a 'consideration for service'. Notwithstanding the same, the first respondent has levied service tax against the appellant. When the said points were raised in the writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant entered into Production Sharing Contracts (PSC) and Joint Operation Agreements (JOA) with various parties. Such services rendered by the appellant, as operator, after 01.07.2012, are required to be classified under Mining Services under section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 as 'taxable services'. However, by suppressing the same, the appellant is receiving mining and exploration services under the head 'production cost' and 'development cost' by which huge loss of revenue has been caused to the department. Therefore, after following due process of law, by issuing show cause notice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, the order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 and 05.03.2018, which were in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant preferred WP.No.27161 of 2019, which was not considered by the learned Judge, which constrained them to file this writ appeal before this court. 7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that after an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellant on 23.08.2017, the first respondent waited for two years and thereafter passed the order dated 29.05.2019. In the interregnum period, two circulars came to be issued by the Ministry of Finance, which are very well applicable to the case of the appellant, but they were not even referred to by the first respondent, while passing the order dated 29.05.2019. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
