9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12. The work performed by the appellants involved : a. Deployment of loaders, excavators, dozers for removal of overburden, waste ash, spillage, etc. and also loading of raw coal, clean coal, secondary coal, rejects and ash, etc. b. Deployment of tippers and coal dumpers for transportation of coal, secondary coal, rejects, tailings and ash etc; c. Transportation of raw coal from colliery pit head to power plant and crusher plant and there from to the washeries; railway sidings, stock yard and such other destinations as specified by TSL; d. Evacuation, loading and transportation of dolomite, within the respective areas under West Bokaro Mines, Chhattisgarh and Gomardih Dolomite Mines 2. The Department is in appeal against the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation of the demand of service tax under mining services by including the above activity of transportation within the ambit of the mining services. 3. The Ld.Authorized Representative, appearing for the Department, says that the activity of the Respondent is a composite activity and the activity of transport cannot be taxed separately and thus, it calls for taxation under the mining services. In such situation, the original authority was incorrect in holding the Respondent to tax liability under GTA services for some portion of the work orders. Further, he reiterated the order in original for confirmation of demand under site formation services and maintenance and repair services. 4. The Ld. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso his contention that for the same activity during the period 2008-09 and 2009-10 (which is a part of the current appeal also), the Respondent had been issued with a show cause notice No. V(15)11/ST-Adj/Commr/11/22196 dated 18.10.2011 based on the CERA audit classifying the activities as Mining service. The Respondent had replied to the above show cause notice and by an Order-in- Original No. 68/commr/ST/Kol/2011-12 dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata the same had been adjudicated wherein the entire demand was dropped. A copy of the said Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2012 are at Page 80 of the Reply to the Appeal filed by the Respondent. 6. Further, he also pointed that Ld. Adjudicating authority has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, New Delhi ("Tribunal" for short) in answering the issue in favour of the Respondent leading to the present proceedings has relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of M/s. V.N. Transport v. CCE, Raipur [2016-TIOL-1510-CESTAT-DEL], Arjuna Carriers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax [MANU/CE/0859/2014 : 2016 (41) S.T.R. 632 (Tri.-Del.)] it is argued that the said decisions may not be relevant to the present case inasmuch as the same pertains to a period prior to 1st June, 2007 and the present case pertains to the post 1st June, 2007 period. The difference in time is relevant in view of the insertion of Section 65(105)(zzzy), extracted above, effective from 1st June, 2007. 5 . Be that as it may, even if the relied upon ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
