2022 (6) TMI 431 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, activities not under 'Survey and Exploration of Mineral' category

M/s. AP Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chennai

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that their activities, including camp mobilization, construction, and maintenance, did not fall ... Classification of services - Survey and Exploration of Mineral service or not - activity of camp mobilisation and demobilisation in the nature of camp establishment and maintenance - preparation of camp ground - construction of sheds, bathrooms, toilets, bunk houses jacking up - electrical wiring and fitting, etc. - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the case of M/S. MOHABIR ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI SOUTH [2019 (4) TMI 181 - CESTAT CHENNAI], which is a sister concern of the appellant herein, for the period from January 2008 to December 2008, has analysed the issue and held that the activities do not fall under the said category of service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Whether the activities of the appellant fall within the definition of 'Survey and Exploration of Mineral' service as alleged in the Show Cause Notice.Analysis:The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that their services fell within the definition of 'Survey and Exploration of Mineral' service under the Finance Act, 1994. The Original Authority confirmed the demand, interest, and imposed a penalty. The appellant contended that their activities, such as camp mobilization, construction, and maintenance, do not fall within the said definition. They argued that their services were more related to camp establishment and maintenance, not surveying or exploration of minerals. The appellant cited previous judgments in favor of similar activities not falling under the mentioned service category.The issue to be decided was whether the activities of the appellant, including camp mobilization, construction, and maintenance, fell within the definition of 'Survey and Exploration of Mineral' services. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the appellant's sister concern, where similar activities were analyzed, and it was concluded that they did not fall under the said service category. The Tribunal examined the appellant's activities in detail, highlighting that they were more related to camp mobilization, maintenance, and other services not directly linked to surveying or exploration of minerals. The Tribunal also considered relevant circulars and previous judgments to support the conclusion that the appellant's activities did not fall under the specified service category.In the appellant's own case, the Commissioner (Appeals) had previously held that the activities undertaken by the appellant did not amount to Survey and Exploration of Mineral, Oil, or Gas services as alleged in the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal found that the decisions in the appellant's sister concern's case and the Commissioner's previous ruling applied to the current situation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs as per the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the demand could not be sustained based on the analysis of the appellant's activities and relevant legal precedents.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant, ruling that their activities did not fall within the 'Survey and Exploration of Mineral' service category as alleged in the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal considered previous judgments, circulars, and detailed analysis of the appellant's activities to reach this decision, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.