2023 (9) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are that the appellant who is registered with the Service Tax Department carried out the work of collection, cleaning, segregation and stacking of blasted raw magnesite within the mining area for M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. by entering into an agreement / contract. During the period from 6.10.2006 to 11.6.2007, it was noticed by the Central Excise officers that they had received a sum of Rs.15,22,166/- as consideration but had not paid any service tax, not filed ST-3 returns and not followed the relevant provisions of the FA. A Show Cause Notice dated 24.11.2010 was issued seeking to classify the activity under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and demanding service tax of Rs.1,86,514/- with interest and also proposed to impose penalties. After....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 42314 and 42315/2017 dated 26.9.2017 held that the services rendered by the appellants who were also engaged in the business of segregating, lifting and stacking raw materials would fall under the category of 'Mining Services' and not under 'Business Auxiliary Service'. Reliance was also placed on the following judgments:- a. M/s. Aryan Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2009 (13) STR 42 (Tri. Bang.) b. Union of India Vs. Spectrum Coal Power Ltd. - 2016 (41) STR 592 (Chhattisgarh) c. CCE, Salem Vs. Thriveni Earth Movers Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 749 The learned counsel submitted that the issue stands covered in favour of the appellant and the appeal is therefore liable to be allowed with consequential relief. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period. We find that a similar issue was examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 42314 and 42315/2017 dated 26.9.2017 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Salem Vs R Suresh Kumar. Relevant portion of the said order s reproduced below: "3. The learned counsel Ms. Nivedita Mehta appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the respondents were primarily engaged in cleaning, segregation and stacking of blasted raw magnesite and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the said services would fall within the meaning of mining activities. In this regard, she submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) rightly relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Aryan Energy Pvt. Ltd. V....