Service Tax Demand Overturned: Limestone Sizing & Transport Not Mining Service; Appeal Granted with Relief.

The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand against the appellant, concluding that their activities of sizing and transporting limestone did not constitute Mining Service. It acknowledged that the service recipient had already paid tax under the reverse charge mechanism for transportation. The Tribunal also accepted the appellant's limitation argument, noting the department's awareness of the activities through audits, thus ruling out suppression of facts. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant's activity of raising/ sizing/ breaking/ loading/ transportation of manually sized limestone for a service recipient is classifiable as Mining Service or not.

Summary:
The appeal was directed against an order confirming the service tax demand along with interest and penalty. The appellant argued that their main activity is post-mining and the larger portion is transportation, thus not qualifying as Mining Service. They also highlighted that the service recipient had already paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism, preventing double taxation. The department argued in favor of the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the appellant was only involved in sizing and transportation, not mining, as per the work order. It was noted that the service recipient paid tax under reverse charge for transportation. The Tribunal also agreed with the appellant's argument on the limitation, stating that the activity was known to the department due to audits, hence no suppression of facts. Consequently, the demand was set aside on both merit and limitation grounds, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---