Mineral winning services not Business Auxiliary Service or Goods Transport Agency. Appeal allowed. Revenue appeal dismissed due to credit limit.

The Tribunal determined that services related to winning minerals fall under mining services, not under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) or Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. As the demand for service tax under BAS was unsustainable for the period in question, the assessee's appeal was allowed. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the appropriating and allowing credit of service tax due to the disputed amount being below the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the CESTAT as per the Government's Litigation Policy.

---

---

Issues: Classification of services under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service, eligibility for credit of service tax, appropriating and allowing credit of service tax, monetary limit for filing appeal.

Classification of services under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS):
The judgment revolves around the classification of services provided by the assessee under BAS and GTA service. The Commissioner had proposed to classify the activities of excavation, extraction, loading, grading, sorting, crushing, and screening of iron ore under BAS and the service of transportation of iron ore by road in a goods carriage under GTA service. The assessee contested this classification, citing a previous case where it was held that services related to winning minerals fall under mining services. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, determining that the primary activity of winning minerals or raising iron ore falls under mining services, which became taxable only from June 1, 2007. As the period in question was April 2006 to October 2006, the demand for service tax under BAS was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed with consequential benefits.

Eligibility for credit of service tax:
The Commissioner allowed the assessee to claim a credit of service tax paid on input services up to a certain amount, holding the assessee liable for the balance tax liability. However, the Tribunal considered the Government's Litigation Policy, which set a monetary limit for filing appeals before the CESTAT at Rs. 50 lakhs. As the disputed amount in this case was below the prescribed limit, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the appropriating and allowing credit of service tax was deemed non-maintainable and dismissed.

Monetary limit for filing appeal:
The judgment also addressed the issue of the monetary limit for filing appeals before the CESTAT as per the Government's Litigation Policy. The disputed amount in this case was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of services under BAS, addressed the eligibility for credit of service tax, and considered the monetary limit for filing appeals before the CESTAT as per the Government's Litigation Policy, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the Revenue's appeal based on the monetary limit.

---