TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ators separately given with rate of individual item, whether the transportation can be treated as part of mining service and liable to service tax under mining service as claimed by the Revenue or whether the same should be treated as independent transportation service for which the service recipient i.e. GMDC is required to discharge the service tax under RCM. 2. Shri Jigar Shah, Learned Counsel along with Shri Amber Kumrawat, Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant submits that the learned commissioner has overlooked the submission of the appellant and mechanically confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice despite the appellant have relied upon number of decisions, the learned Commissioner has not given any find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-SC-ST. 2.2 He submits that in the case of mining, transportation of mineral has been considered as GTA service and not mining service. He further placed reliance on the decisions:- Jain Carrying Corporation vs. CCE , Jaipur - 2019 (3) TMI 864 Jain Carrying Corporation vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2014 (12) TMI 506 Commissioner vs. Jain Carrying Corporation - 2015 (11) TMI 98-SC Joginder Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd & Or. vs. CCE & ST, Raipur - 2018 -TIOL- 2890-CESTAT-Del. 2.3 He further submits that demand of service tax under the category of mining service on the activity of transportation and unloading mineral outside the mine areas i.e. from mines to power plant station of M/s. GMDC is not sustainable. He refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09 (14) STR 0289 ( Bom.). 2.4 He also takes support of the judgment of Delhi Tribunal in the case of R K Transport Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2012 (27) STR 0496 (Tri.-Del). He further submits that the activity of transportation of mineral at specified location outside the mining area is correctly classified as GTA Service. He referred to Board Circular No. 104/7/2008-ST dated 06.08.2008 As per provision of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 the recipient of service of GTA falling within specified category has to discharge service tax liability. He further submits that the demand was raised by invoking the extended period of limitation which is not applicable in the present case as there is no suppression of fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the appellant had entered into the agreement with the service recipient i.e. M/s. GMDC which is a public sector undertaking and as per the agreement the appellant have undertaken to perform the following activities: a) Excavation and loading of limestone and lignite in mines of M/s GMDC at Panandhro; b) Transportation and unloading of minerals from mines to power plant of lignite and lime stone from mines to Akrimota Thermal Power Station; c) Transportation of ash from the power plant to mines; and d) Hiring of necessary dumpers and excavators with operators, maintenance staff and supervisor staff. 4.1 From the above it is ....