2024 (3) TMI 457

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....est levied under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant's activity such as raising/ sizing/ breaking/ loading/ transportation of manually sized limestone for service recipient M/s. GHCL is classifiable as Mining Service or otherwise. 3. Shri Arvind Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the appellant's main activity is raising/ sizing/ breaking/ loading/ transportation of manually sized limestone which is post mining activity and the mining activity has not been carried out by the appellant and out of these activities the larger portion is of transportation therefore the service ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ized lime stone from mining site to the service recipient plant site. Therefore, there is no activity of mining given to the appellant. From this work order, it is also clear that mining was carried out by someone else in the service recipient's mine and the appellant was awarded the job of only sizing of lime stones manually and supply thereof to their site therefore sizing of already mined lime stones does not fall under the activity of Mining Service and the major part is of transportation of the goods. Therefore, the entire activity does not qualify to categorize the same as mining service. Moreover, on the transportation, undisputedly the service recipient discharges the service tax under reverse charge mechanism. For this reason also ....