TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Order-in-Original No. 27/COMMR/ST/BOL/15 dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bolpur. In the impugned Order, the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.51,72,152/- on "Transportation of Coal" with incidental loading within the mining area under the category of "Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Service". 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the period under dispute, the Appellant has executed a Work Order dated 04.02.2011 and a Work Order dated 22.10.2012 for "Transportation of Coal within the Mines of BCCL from Muradih OCP coal face to the Feeder Breaker and PG-III dump, with incidental loading at coal face at Barora Area of BCCL" awarded by Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCCL). 2.1. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not liable to pay Service Tax. In support of their contention, the appellant relies on the following judgments: - (i) Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax, Raipur Vs. Singh Transporters reported in 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.) (ii) Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.Tax reported in 2024 (3) TMI 1106-CESTAT-Kolkata 3.2. The appellant submits that the transport services are logistic services which are not understood as a mining activity in the common parlance. They also submit that the activity of transportation is not understood as an activity in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas; transport services are 'post mining activity' and hence, the transport services provided by the appellant cannot be classifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the scope of levy. 3.6. The appellant also submits that major portion of the demand in the instant case is barred by normal period of limitation; the dispute in the instant case relates to the period from 2010-11 to 2012-13 whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 13.03.2014. The appellant points out that none of the ingredients necessary for invoking extended period of limitation exists in the instant case. Accordingly, the appellant contends that the demands confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We observe that the appellant has r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms. "65. Definitions : ..................... (105) "taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided, - ............ (zzp) to any person, by a goods transport agency, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage; ........... ........... (zzzy) to any person, by any other person in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas;" 5. Though the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ("Tribunal" for short) in answering the issue in favour of the respondent leading to the present proceedings has relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of M/s. V.N. Transport v. CCE, Raipur [2016-TIOL-1510-CESTAT-DEL], Arjun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observe that the same view has been held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST reported in 2024(3) TMI 1106-CESTAT-Kolkata [Final Order No. 75611 of 2024 dated 22.03.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75830 of 2015 - CESTAT, Kolkata]. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is reproduced below: "6.3. Regarding the demand of service tax under 'Mining Services', the Appellant submits that the Service Tax demand has been raised by merely comparing ST-3 returns with Balance Sheet/Profit & Loss A/c without any investigation. They further submit that the activity of transportation of Coal outside the mines and also within the mines cannot be classified under the categories of Mining Services, as def....