TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mechanized operation. (ii) Mechanised/Semi-mechanised raising of Lump Iron ore. (iii) Loading, Transportation and unloading of lump ores by mechanized operation. The departmental authorities investigated into the affairs of the appellant and issued show cause notice dropped the demand in respect of (ii) above but confirmed the demand of service tax on (i) & (iii) as follows: (ii) Rs. 78,22,143/- against cargo handling service. (i) Rs. 9,21,196/- on account of Site Formation and Clearance Service Penalties were also imposed under various section of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. With the above background we heard Shri K.Kurmi, Advocate for the appellant as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the work carried out by the appellant for moving Iron Ore Lumps from mines to the crusher plant. The appellant also appears to have carried out the incidental loading and un-loading of Iron Ore. But we find that the Tribunal in the case of Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., Cus. & S.T., BBSR [2008(9) STR 531 (Tri.-Kolkata)] has held that the transportation of coal within the mining area is not covered under the category of Cargo Handling Services. The Tribunal observed as follows: "8. We find that the activity undertaken by both the appellants for mechanical transfer of coal from the coal face to tippers and subsequent transportation of the coal within the mining area, does not come under the purview of cargo handin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stification to upheld the demand of service tax under the category of Cargo Handling Services for the work of transportation of iron ore carried out within the mining area. 7. Next we consider the activity of removal of over burden carried out by the appellant. The department has taken the view that such activity will be covered within the category site formation services for the period prior to 01.06.2007 when the category of mining services was introduced separately. Such demand has been raised by relying on the CBEC Circular dated 12.11.2007 in which such view has been reiterated. However, we find that Tribunal in the case of M.Ramakrishna Reddy vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. & Cus, Tirupathi (supra) the Commissioner has held that removal of overb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cified in clause (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of a service which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable; (c) when a service cannot be classified in the manner specified in clause (a) or clause (b), it shall be classified under the sub-clause which occurs first among the sub-clauses which equally merit consideration". 10.2 If the above provision is applied, the services rendered would amount to only mining services. As the contract is a comprehensive one for mining, it cannot be vivisected for levying service tax on that portion of the activity relating to Site Formation in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Daelim Industrial Company v. CCE, Vadodara [2006 (3) ....