2018 (2) TMI 288 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal allowed, tax liability order set aside due to reliance on legal precedent.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order imposing tax liability on the appellant for business auxiliary services was set aside. The Bench found that ... Classification of services - appellants had entered into an agreement with M/s. MALCO to carry out mining services - Business Auxiliary Services or mining services - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2009 (4) TMI 9 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that activity of loading and transportation of limestone and rejects from mine head to crushing premises under taken within mining area and covered by Mines Act, 1952 would not be taxable under Business Auxiliary Service - levy of service tax as business auxiliary services cannot then be sustained - appeal allowed. Issues:Tax liability on mining services provided by the appellant under the category of business auxiliary service.Analysis:The case involved M/s. Thirumala Enterprises entering into an agreement with M/s. MALCO to provide mining services, including various activities related to bauxite extraction and processing. The tax liability of Rs. 23,70,189/- was imposed on the appellant by the Department, considering these services as falling under the business auxiliary service category. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel referred to a Tribunal's decision in the case of Thiriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, where it was held that loading and transportation of minerals within the mining area are not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service. This decision was further supported by the Supreme Court's dismissal of an appeal against it. Additionally, the appellant cited other Tribunal decisions and a High Court judgment reinforcing the classification of similar services as mining services rather than business auxiliary services.On the contrary, the Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings of the impugned order supporting the tax levy on the appellant for business auxiliary services. After hearing both sides, the Bench found that the issue was conclusively settled by the previous decisions and judgments cited by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the impugned order levying service tax as business auxiliary services was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief as per the law.This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedent and the interpretation of service classifications in tax matters. It underscores the significance of established decisions in guiding the resolution of similar disputes and ensuring consistency in tax treatment across cases.