TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting and transportation of iron ore for Mrs.Mala Roy, lease holder of Jalahori Iron & Manganese Mines in Orissa. The appellants were being paid a fixed rate per ton of the iron ore. On scrutiny of the ST-3 returns and other documents, the department has observed that the appellants have short paid Service Tax on 'Transport of Goods by Road', 'Mining Service', 'Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition Service' during the period 2005-06 to 2009-10. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 19.10.2010 was issued to the appellants demanding Service Tax of Rs. 9,12,40,927/-; Education Cess of Rs. 18,24,821/- and Higher Education Cess of Rs. 5,01,545/- under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 while p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and Clearance Service' he dropped the demand pertaining to financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07 for the reason that it was not recovered from the lease holder. However, the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand in respect of both the services for the period April and May 2007. The learned Commissioner also confirmed the entire demand in respect of 'Mining Services' allowing the credit of Service Tax paid by the lease holder on GTA in respect of 60% of the consideration. 3. Learned Sr.Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue relating to handling and transportation of coal from pit head to the mines premises was covered by the following decisions:- (i) Karamjeet Singh & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Service Tax [20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtent of Rs. 12,23,964/- for the period April and May 2007 under 'Site Formation and Clearance Service'. Learned Sr.Counsel also relied upon Hon'ble Apex Court's judgement in the case of Continental Foundation JT. Venture Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh-I as reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.). 5. The learned Authorized Representative for the department reiterates the findings of the Order-in-Original and submits that the case law submitted by the appellant is not applicable as the operations undertaken by the appellant is clearly falling under 'Mining Services' and it cannot be artificially split into 'Mining Services' and 'GTA Services' . He relies upon the case of Hazaribagh Mining & Engg. Pvt.Ltd. [2017 49) S.T.R. 289 (Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....M.) Rs. 465/- Iron Ore 20-40 (R.O.M.) Rs. 465/- The essence of the contract is that the Contractor has vast experience and possess technical know how and expertise including personnel, mining tools, machinery and other necessary equipment to undertake exploration, excavation, processing, transportation and marketing of iron ore from said Mine. It has now been agreed upon that out of the above agreed rate it has been felt necessary to bifurcate the expenses relating to mining and transportation as these are the main major heads of operating expenses. After through discussion it has now been agreed upon that the contractor however will have to restrict the mining and transportation billing to the ratio of 40:60 (Approx.) and henc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e pit head to dump yard. Therefore it was held in such cases that the activity undertaken by the concerned parties would not fall under 'Mining Services'. However, as seen above, the activity undertaken by the appellants is composite activity. For the sake of interpretation and applicability of Service Tax the contract cannot be vivisected. Learned Sr.Counsel attempted to submit that as the payments are received separately for mining and transportation activities they need to be considered as different services. We are not inclined to subscribe to this view. The terms of the contract in the instant case being categorical and the division of the amount payable in a ratio appears to be only for the convenience of the parties involved and ther....