TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sposed of through this common order. 2. The appellants in these two cases are engaged in providing services of loading and transportation/movement of coal in the mining area of M/s South Eastern Coal Fields (SECL). SECL entered into two separate agreement with each of the appellants as here-in-below :- (i) Loading Agreement :- as per this agreement, the appellant was required to carry out the operations of loading of coal at coal face in the case of open cost mines. The coal which is mined was required to be loaded into tipper/trucks in terms of this agreement ; (ii) transportation agreement :- as per this agreement, the appellant was required to transport the coal from coal face (i.e. a place where the coal is mined) to the railway siding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01/07/2012, the Adjudicating Authority took the view that the activities carried out under loading agreement as well as transportation agreement are to be considered as a "bundled service" and as per the provision of Section 66F of the Act. There are to be considered as a single service of mining. Accordingly, he held that the appellants were liable to payment of service tax without the abatements available for GTA service, for the activity comprised in both the agreements. The differential service tax has been ordered to be paid alongwith interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the decisions, the present appeals stand filed. 4. With the above background, we heard Shri A.K. Batra, learned C.A. representing both the appellants as well as Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 66F. 6. Learned DR justified the impugned orders. He fairly conceded that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Transporters (supra) will be applicable for the period upto 30/06/2012, however, for the period w.e.f. 01/07/2012 he submitted as follows :- (i) the appellants have entered into two separate agreements with SECL - for loading of coal from the coal face to the tipper trucks and for transporting the same from the same point to railway siding which is also within the mining area. He submitted that the contracts have been artificially vivisected even though the activity comprised is nothing but different aspects of mining. He emphasized the fact that both activities are performed within the mini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided in identical circumstances that the activity cannot be charged under mining service but more appropriately classifiable under transportation of goods by road service. The observation of the Apex Court is reproduced below :- "6. Be that as it may, even if the relied upon judgment in the case of Arjuna Carriers (supra) is of no consequence to the present case, we are of the view that the activity undertaken by the respondent i.e. transportation of coal from the pit-heads to the railway sidings within the mining areas is more appropriately classifiable under Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Act, namely, under the head "transport of goods by road service" and does not involve any service in relation to "mining of mineral, oil or gas" as prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vities. The machinery used for the two activities are independent and unconnected with each other. Further it is seen that the total quantum of coal loaded at the coal face has no co- relation with the total quantum of coal transported from the coal face to the railway siding. Simply because both the activities are to be performed within the mining area, is no reason to bundle the two together and to take the view that provision of one service is combined with an element of provision of the other service. The difference in the quantity of coal loaded and the quantity being transported clearly show that the appellant is not doing transportation the loaded coal is a continuous activity. Perusal of the terms of the contract clearly indicate th....