2018 (7) TMI 1011
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the case are that appellants had removed over boulders / over burdens in respect of mines owned by Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd.. Department took the view that these are pre-mining operations and hence would amount to rendering of Site Formation Service. Accordingly, proceedings w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er hopper. He submits copies of work orders in this regard. Ld. Consultant also draws our attention to the decision of Tribunal in Kanak Khaniz Udyog Vs CCE Jaipur-II - 2017 (52) STR 46 (Tri.-Del.) where inter alia, the activities of removal of overburdens has been held to be classifiable only under 'Mining Services'. 3. On the other hand, Ld.A.R supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice tax were now estopped from denying their liability. This, surely, is not a sustainable conclusion, since it would mean that appellants cannot appeal on merits if they have paid up part or whole of the tax liability as insisted upon by the department, in most cases to buy peace. In any case, the clarification given by the CBEC is amply clear and there should not be any doubt on the issue. The ....