2018 (6) TMI 878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the appellant Sh. R K Majhi, DR for the respondent ORDER Per : Mr. V. Padmanabhan The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Original No.102/2013 dated 13/12/2013. The appellant is registered for payment of service tax under various categories. The dispute covers the period 1/04/2007 to 31/3/2011. The appellant was awarded a tender dated 31/3/2006 by Rajasthan State Mines and Miner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....consideration received by the appellant amounting to about Rs. 17 crores as received from RSMML. But the appellant claimed that out of the said amount, only a small amount of about Rs. 1 crore was pertaining to the work executed for RSMML. It was claimed that the rest of the consideration was received from various cement companies towards transportation of their goods from their respective factori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olved only mere transportation of goods. The adjudicating authority, in para 31 of the impugned order, has opined that the contract executed with RSMML was representative of all the activities carried out and has failed to note of the submissions made by them. He also emphasized the fact that even the activity carried out for RSMML involved only transportation of minerals, and cannot be categorize....