TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echnical Member - The appellant entered into an offshore drilling rig contract for supply of jackup rig and certain equipments/tools with experienced persons to operate the rig in November 2005. They started receiving the payments for supply of rigs and crew from November 2006. Service tax demand of Rs. 19,86,31,386 has been confirmed against the appellants on the ground that the service provided ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the new service was made liable to service tax. On 16-2-2009, the appellants had a meeting with the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III Commissionerate and had a discussion and thereafter a letter was issued to them stating that the service provided by them was covered under the category of mining services and therefore, they would be liable to pay service tax with effect from 1-6-2007,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that the difference between the service tax demanded and the service tax paid by them has arisen because they had not recovered service tax from GSPC at all and therefore, they have treated the amount received from GSPC as cum-service tax amount and accordingly, calculated the service tax payable. The learned consultant submitted that full amount of service tax with interest has been paid an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Commissioner in this regard. However, the learned consultant rebutted it saying that they had claimed that they had not received service tax separately and therefore, amount is to be treated as cum-service tax. 4. After considering submissions made by both the sides and also taking note of the fact that there can be two opinions about the category of service under which service prov....