TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansportation of iron ore and fines by mechanized means at Daitari Iron Ore Mines of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, a Government of Orissa Undertaking. Initially the contract was for one year from February 2005 and was thereafter extended for another year. The work required to be done by the appellant in terms of the contract and the material provisions thereof are briefly summarized as under:- (a) The appellant was to drill, blast, hole by using drill machines. The blast hole drilled by the appellant was to be blasted by the Corporation with explosives on chargeable basis. (b) The appellant was to excavate and raise the blasted iron ore by mechanized means and transport the same to the dry screening plant of the Corpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant was not to be paid for CLO and fines not conforming to the Corporation's specifications. (h) The appellant was to provide all materials, tools and tackles and services and labour of every description as also transport for the proper execution and completion of the work to the satisfaction of the Mines Manager of the Corporation. (i) The appellant was not to assign the work or any part thereof or any share or interest therein or sublet the work or any part thereof or allow any person to become interested in the work or any portion thereof if any manner whatsoever. (j) The contract fixed the rate at which the appellant was to be paid in the first, second and third years. The rate was split - one for the drilling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 27,13,825/- along with appropriate interest and imposed penalties under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri J.P.Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the appellant was not a Cargo Handling Agency". The goods produced by the appellant were not cargo and the appellant did not render any cargo handling service. The appellant merely moved the goods produced by it from the place of production to the designated place within the premises of the corporation. The loading and unloading of the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in various cases. We note that the contract is for a series of activities starting from mining to delivery of the iron ore to the designated place of the corporation. We observe that loading and unloading is incidental to mining and transportation in this contract. It is our considered view that the appellant cannot be assessed as an agent in the context of rendering the service of cargo handling. Cargo handling, even if taken as a separate service rendered, the same is rendered to the appellant himself in completing the entire work assigned to the appellant vide the contract. 7. We are of the view that the activities undertaken by the appellants under the impugned contracts primarily involves excavation and transportation of iron ore su....