2016 (10) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith Service Tax Department. Consequent upon audit of the records of the appellant conducted in September 2010, the Department entertained a view that the appellants did not discharge service tax for the services of shot hole drilling and seismic job to their client during the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand and recovery service tax of Rs. 56,72,903/- alongwith proposal to impose penalties under various provisions of Finance Act, 1994. On completion of the adjudication proceedings the impugned order was passed. The Original Authority confirmed the service tax demand and also imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 alongwith the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....all within the ambit of this taxable service. 5. We have perused the impugned order carefully. It is noticed that the appellants entered into a contract with M/s Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd., which is an associate company providing various services to ONGC. As per the scope of work under the impugned contract, the appellant had agreed to provide shot hole of specified depth and quantities by using the mechanics drilling rigs provided by the main contractor and under the provisions of the said main contractor. The specification of work is elaborated in the contract and they are not in dispute. The appellants main plea is that they are not involved in any activity of survey and exploration of minerals. The term  survey ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vat Credit Rules, 2004 will come into play subject to fulfillment of conditions therein. It is nobody s case that the sub-contractors per-se are not liable to service tax even if they rendered taxable service. The appellants also argued that there could be no demand for extended period in view of the fact that there is no intention to evade payment of duty on the part of appellant. The appellant sought support based on the concept of Revenue neutrality to contend against demand for extended period. We note that availability or otherwise of Cenvat credit to the recipient of service by itself cannot decide the bonafideness of the appellant. We find that the Original Authority relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE vs. Mahindra....