Service tax classification turns on the real nature of work and the levy period; mine, pipeline, pump and fencing claims failed.

Service tax classification depends on the real nature of the work and the applicable levy period. Removal and collection of spillage inside mines for reuse in the conveyor system was not cleaning service, as it was not cleaning of commercial or industrial premises. Erection and commissioning of pipelines done before the introduction of installation service on 10.09.2004 could not be taxed under that category. Operation of water pumps was not manpower supply service because labour deployment was merely incidental to the contract. Barbed wire fencing for plantation purposes was not commercial or industrial construction service. The demands on all four heads were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether removal and collection of spillage material within the mines area was classifiable as cleaning service; (ii) Whether erection and commissioning of pipelines during the relevant period was liable to service tax as erection, commissioning or installation service; (iii) Whether the work relating to operation of water pumps was classifiable as manpower supply service; and (iv) Whether barbed wire fencing for plantation was liable to service tax as commercial or industrial construction service.

Issue (i): Whether removal and collection of spillage material within the mines area was classifiable as cleaning service.

Analysis: The activity was carried out inside the mines area and was directed towards removal of spillage for reuse in the conveyor system. Such work did not amount to cleaning of commercial or industrial buildings or premises. The statutory category invoked by the department was therefore not attracted to the nature of the work performed.

Conclusion: The demand under cleaning service was not sustainable and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether erection and commissioning of pipelines during the relevant period was liable to service tax as erection, commissioning or installation service.

Analysis: The work was executed before 10.09.2004, whereas installation service was brought into force only from that date by Section 90 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. Since the activity preceded the effective date of the levy, it could not be brought within the newly introduced taxable category.

Conclusion: The demand under erection, commissioning or installation service was not sustainable and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the work relating to operation of water pumps was classifiable as manpower supply service.

Analysis: The work order showed that the primary obligation was operation and installation of pumps, with deployment of labour being only incidental to execution of the assigned work. The substance of the contract was not supply of manpower as such, and the departmental classification therefore could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The demand under manpower supply service was not sustainable and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether barbed wire fencing for plantation was liable to service tax as commercial or industrial construction service.

Analysis: The fencing activity was undertaken for plantation-related purposes such as beautification or pollution prevention and was not connected with commercial or industrial construction. The essential ingredients of the taxable entry were absent on the facts found.

Conclusion: The demand under commercial or industrial construction service was not sustainable and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in full and the service tax demands on all disputed heads failed, resulting in complete relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A service must fall squarely within the statutory taxable entry on its real nature and applicable period of levy, and a demand cannot be sustained where the activity is outside the defined service category or predates the introduction of that taxable entry.

---