Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mukand Limited vs Belgaum on 19 March, 2024
ST/21873/2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Appeal No. 21873 of 2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.BEL-EXCUS-COM-BHR-05 (ST)-
14-15 dated 22.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central
Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Belgaum.)
M/s. Mukand Limited
Hospet Road, Appellant(s)
Ginigera,
Koppal - 583 228
Versus
The Commissioner of Central
Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Respondent(s)
No.71, Club Road,
Belgaum - 590 001.
Appearance:
Mr. M. S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Appellant
Mr. Dyamappa Airani,
For the Respondent
Dy. Commissioner (AR)
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Final Order No. 20187 /2024
Date of Hearing: 19.03.2024
Date of Decision: 19.03.2024
Per : D.M. MISRA
This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Original No.BEL-
EXCUS-COM-BHR-05 (ST)-14-15 dated 22.05.2015 passed by
the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant under
an agreement, titled as 'Raising Agreement' dt. 03.5.2003 with
the lease holder of the mine M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited
provided service of mining operations i.e., to explore, develop,
Page 1 of 15
ST/21873/2015
excavate, to extract, grade, screen, size, sort and stock of iron
ore minerals from Jambunathanahalli Iron Ore Mines to M/s.
Mysore Minerals Limited. Alleging that the services rendered
under the said agreement attracts service tax under clause (v) of
'Business Auxiliary Services' as defined under Section 65(19) of
Finance Act, 1994 being Production or processing of the goods
for, or on behalf of client taxable with effect from 16.6.2005,
Show-cause notice was issued on 22.6.2006 proposing to
recover Service Tax amount of Rs.1,55,17,723/- for the period
16.5.2005 to 31.03.2006 with interest and penalty. On
adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and
penalty. Hence, the present appeal.
2.1 At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has
submitted that the appellant under the raising agreement with
M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd., mining lease holder in respect of
mines in Jambunathanahalli village provided service for mining
of iron ore from the said mine. Referring to various clauses of
the said 'Raising Agreement' dated 03.05.2003 including clause
(21), the learned advocate has submitted that for the activities
viz. to explore, develop, excavate, to extract, grade, screen,
size, sort and stacking iron ores narrated in the said Agreement,
the appellant had charged and received Rs.188/- per metric
tonne to every ton of calibrated iron ore and Rs.25/- per metric
tonne for iron ore fines raised and generated by them. It is his
contention that in terms of the said 'Raising Agreement' dated
03.05.2003, the appellant had undertaken and provided the
services of mining operations which comprises of exploration,
development, excavation, extraction, grading, screening, sizing,
sorting and stacking of iron ores, etc., in the mines of the
Appellant. Thus, the appellant has undertaken the activity of
"mining of ores" under the said Agreement and not simply
production of Iron ore for and behalf of the client. It is his
contention that the learned Commissioner has erred in holding
that the activities undertaken by the appellant fall under the
Page 2 of 15
ST/21873/2015
category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' under clause (v) of the
said taxable category.
2.2 It is his contention that levy of service tax on "mining of
minerals" has been introduced with effect from 01.06.2007.
Referring to the said definition of and the definition of 'mine',
'minerals' and 'mining operation' under the Mines Act, 1952, the
learned advocate has submitted that the activities of excavation,
extraction, grading, screening, etc., undertaken in the mines for
the purpose of winning iron ore constitute 'mining operations' as
per the Raising Contract read with Section 3(d) of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It is his
argument that minerals are obtained from the earth by mining
and not by production or processing and the same falls under
the taxable category of "mining of mineral, oil or gas" as defined
in Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 leviable to
Service Tax with effect from 01.06.2007. Hence, the same
activity does not amount to production or processing of goods as
held by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order.
2.3 Further, referring to Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994
relevant to classification of services, he has submitted that
subclause which provides most specific description shall be
preferred to sub-clauses providing a more general description.
The Composite Services consisting of a combination of different
services which cannot be classified in the manner specified in
clause (a) shall be classified as if they consisted of a service
which gives them their essential character. In support, he has
referred to the judgment in the case of CCE, Cus. & ST vs.
Federal Bank Ltd. 2016 (42) STR 418 (SC) and Hira
Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur: 2012 (28) STR 23 (Tri.-
Del.).
2.4 He further submits that in the present case, the activities
carried out by the appellant are specifically covered under the
category of taxable service of "mining of mineral, oil or gas"
Page 3 of 15
ST/21873/2015
falling under Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994,
hence, taxable only with effect from 01.06.2007 and not for the
earlier period under any other taxable category. In support, he
has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
in the case of Indian National Shipowner's Association vs.
UOI: 2009 (14) STR 289 (Bom.) upheld by the Supreme
Court reported in UOI vs. Indian National Shipowner's
Association: 2011 (21) STR 3 (SC).
2.5 Further, referring to the Circular No.334/1/2007-TRU
dated 28.2.2007 issued by the Board, clarifying the scope of
'mining of mineral, oil or gas' services after the introduction of
the said levy in 2007 Union Budget and further clarification vide
Circular No.232/2/2006-CX.4 dated 12.11.2007, he has
submitted that the instructions issued under the said circular are
clear, unambiguous and binding on the authorities. It is clarified
that the activities of exploration, extraction of minerals and
lifting them up to the pit head are classified under "mining of
minerals" which has become taxable with effect from 1.6.2007.
In support he has referred to the following judgments:
(i) Tuli Construction Co. vs. CCE & ST, BBSR-II: 2019
(25) GSTL 43 (Tri.-Kol.)
(ii) CCE, C & ST, BBSR II vs. Ores India (P) Ltd.: 2012
(27) STR 188 (Tri.-Kol.)
(iii) Hazaribagh Mining and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE
& ST, BBSR-II: 2017 (49) STR 289 (Tri.-Kol.)
(iv) CCE, C & ST, BBSR-II vs. B K. Thakkar: 2008 (9)
STR 542 (Tri.-Kol.)
(v) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Vijay Leasing Company: 2011
(22) STR 553 (Tri.-Bang.)
(vi) Balaji Mines and Minerals Pvt Ltd and Ors. vs. CCE,
Belgaum: 2020-TIOL-158-CESTAT-Bangalore
(vii) M Ramakrishna Reddy vs. Commr. of C. Ex. & Cus.,
Tirupathi: 2009 (13) STR 661 (Tri.-Bang.)
(viii) Associated Soapstone Distributing Co. P. Ltd. vs.
CCE, Jaipur-II: 2014 (34) STR 865 (Tri.-Del.)
Page 4 of 15
ST/21873/2015
(ix) M/s G.S.Atwal & Co. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax,Kolkata Final Order No.
75533/2023 dt.06.6.2023.
2.6 Further, he has submitted that since the issue relates to
determination of classification of service rendered by the
Appellant in the context of new levy of service is a matter of
interpretation of law, hence imposition of penalty after an
inordinate delay of adjudication is unwarranted and
unsustainable in law. Since the appellant had deposited the
entire amount of Service Tax during investigation in March 2006,
hence Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 be invoked and penal
provision be dropped.
3. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative
reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. It is his
argument that in applying the judgments cited by the learned
advocate for the appellant to the present case, the facts of the
those cases has to be analysed and the judgment be understood
in the context of the facts of the said case. He has submitted
that in Indian National Shipowner's Association case (supra), the
appellants provided service to major exploration and production
operators with their various vessels that include offshore drilling
rigs, offshore support, vessels, harbour tugs and construction
barges. The department demanded service tax from the
appellant under the category of 'mining of minerals' services
which was introduced from 01.06.2007. However, the claim of
the assessee in the said case is that their service/activity is
appropriately classifiable under "supply of tangible goods for
use" under the Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The issue before the Hon'ble High Court was whether the activity
of assessee is covered under 'mining of minerals services' before
16.5.2008 when the taxable category of service of "supply of
tangible goods" had been introduced. The Hon'ble High Court
held that the services rendered by the appellant would fall under
the category of "supply of tangible goods for use" and not under
the category of "mining of mineral service" since the activity had
Page 5 of 15
ST/21873/2015
no direct nexus with the mining. In this context, an observation
was made that Entry 65(105)(zzzzj) was inserted without
amending the entry 65(105)(zzzy) and the latter entry is not a
subspecies of the former. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the
judgment of the Bombay High Court, however, not affirmed the
view that if a service is added later into the taxable service list,
it automatically means that the activity was not covered by the
earlier taxable category. Therefore, if it can be established that
the activity carried out by the appellant is covered under
'Business Auxiliary Service', it should be taxable up to
01.06.2007 under the said category.
3.1 Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa
Goa (India) Ltd.: 2005 SCC OnLine Bom. 1650, learned
Authorised Representative for the Revenue has submitted that
from the observation of various High Courts referred to in the
said judgment that the activity carried out by the appellant is
indeed "production of goods and not mining of mineral, hence it
could be inferred that the activities carried out by the appellant
are squarely covered under the scope of 'Business Auxiliary
Service'. Also, it is argued that mining of minerals is a
subspecies of production of goods, hence to that extent the
judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Indian National Shipowner's Association (supra) is not
applicable to the facts of the present case. It is his contention
that if the activities are covered under a General Entry and later
a specific entry which might be carved out from the generic
entry is introduced, then the said activity will be covered under
both the entries. Referring to the Circular No. 232/2/2006-CX.4
dated 12.11.2007, the learned AR for the Revenue has
submitted that principle applied in the said circular is very clear
in the sense that if an activity is covered under an existing entry
before introduction of mining services, then service tax is
chargeable under that entry. He has pleaded that this circular
does not subscribe to the principle that all activities related to
Page 6 of 15
ST/21873/2015
mining are liable to Service Tax only after 01.06.2007. Applying
the same principle to the extraction of minerals, it could be
stated that the said activity be covered under any other entry.
Therefore, it could be inferred that mining of minerals on
contract basis is chargeable to Service Tax under 'Business
Auxiliary Service' and the clarification issued by the Board
cannot be applied ignoring provisions contained in the Act, which
is very clear. Hence, appellant is liable to pay Service Tax for the
mining activity under the category of Business Auxiliary Service
for the disputed period. He has distinguished the judgments
cited on behalf of the Appellant as follows.
(i) Tuli Construction Co. vs. CCE & ST, BBS II: 2019
(25) GSTL 43 (Tri.-Kol.) - The competing service
was site formation and excavation service whereas
the contract was a composite contract.
(ii) CCE, C & ST, BBS II vs. Ores India (P) Ltd.: 2012
(27) STR 188 (Tri.-Kol.) - In para 8, the Hon'ble
Tribunal has said that the grounds of appeal by
Revenue are beyond show-cause notice and also that
the contract cannot be divided into separate
activities. The decision is based on these grounds.
Also, the judgment is not clear as to under which
limb of Business Auxiliary Service, the Revenue was
trying to classify the service. Also, there is no reason
as to why it is mining service and no Business
Auxiliary for the period concerned.
(iii) Hazaribagh Mining and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE
& ST, BBSR II: 2017 (49) STR 289 (Tri.-Kol.) - The
competing service is site formation service.
(iv) CCE, C & ST, BBSR II vs. B K Thakkar: 2008 (9) STR
542 (Tri.-Kol.) - Competing service is cargo handling
service whereas the contract was a composite
contract.
(v) CCE, Hyderabad vs. Vijay Leasing Company: 2011
(22) STR 553 (Tri.-Bang.) - Competing service is
site formation service.
(vi) Balaj Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. CCE,
Belgaum: 2020-TIOL-158-CESTAT-Bangalore -
competing service is site formation service.
(vii) M. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. Commr. of C. Ex. & Cus.
Tirupathi: 2009 (13) STR 661 (Tri.-Bang.) -
Competing service is site formation service.
Page 7 of 15
ST/21873/2015
(viii) Associated Soapstone Distributing Co. P. Ltd. vs.
CCE, Jaipur-II: 2014 (34) STR 865 (Tri.-Del.) -
competing service is site formation service.
3.2 Referring to the Circular No.334/1/2007-TRU dated
28.02.2007 on classification of taxable service, learned
Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the
services rendered by the appellant are classifiable under
'Business Auxiliary Service'.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records. The principal
issue involved in the present appeal for determination is: (i)
whether the activity/service rendered by the appellant in raising
iron ore to the Appellant under agreement dated 03.05.2003
would fall under the taxable category of clause 'Business
Auxiliary Services' as alleged by the Revenue or under 'Mining of
Minerals, Oil or Gas' leviable to tax with effect from 01.06.2007;
and (ii) imposition of penalty is justified.
5. The undisputed facts are that the appellants are
manufacturers of alloys and non-alloys, steel billets, rods and
bars. They had entered into an agreement on 03.05.2003 titled
'Raising Agreement' with M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd., holder of
mining lease of forest area in Jambunathanahalli village for
mining of iron ore. The Revenue's contention is that the activities
undertaken by the appellant under the said agreement is a
service falling under clause (v) of Business Auxiliary Service viz.,
'production or processing of goods for or on behalf of the clients'.
Whereas, the appellant's contention is that the service rendered
by them to M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd. under the said agreement
dated 03.05.2003 viz., exploration, develop, excavate, extract,
grade, screen, size, sort and stack, etc., of iron ores/minerals
from the mines is a composite activity involving mining operation
and not limited to production and processing of iron ore and
hence, correctly classifiable under taxable category of 'Mining of
Page 8 of 15
ST/21873/2015
Mineral, oil or gas' service inserted in Finance Act, 1994 with
effect from 1.6.2007.
6. Before analyzing the rival arguments, it is necessary to
refer to the relevant clauses of the 'Raising Agreement' dated
03.05.2003, which reads as:
The expression 'Mining Operations' is defined in the
Agreement -
"Minerals" used in this Agreement shall mean and include
all types and grades of Iron Ore including Calibrated Iron
Ore, BFQ, BHQ and Iron Ore Fines;
"Mining Operations" used in this Agreement shall mean
explore, develop, excavate, extract, grade, screen, size, sort
and stack etc of iron ore/minerals from the mine.
Clause 3 The Second party shall during the continuance of
this agreement scientifically and systematically carry-on
mining operations to extract, excavate, raise, grade, screen,
size, sort and stack etc., on the schedule area and thereafter
the entire schedule area of the First Party.
Clause 4: The extraction of minerals from sand mine shall
be carried out by the Second Party by itself or through other
agency in accordance with the established mining practice,
in conformity with the mining laws, rules and regulations for
the time being in force.
Clause 5: Upon execution of this agreement the First Party
shall hand over possession of the said mines to the Second
Party, shall be entitled to enter upon the schedule land and
to carry out all necessary operations for implementing the
terms contained herein and putting up crushing and
screening plant of required capacity and temporary
constructions and maintaining structures such as huts,
buildings, workshops, store house and any other such
structure which may be necessary for the Second Party to
carry on the mining operations strictly in conformity with the
laws applicable to thesubject matter. It is clearly understood
between the parties that the right granted to the Second
Party to enter upon the said mines is only to carry out the
mining operations and other incidental operations connected
therewith.
Clause 7: The Second Party shall carry out mining
operations systematically and in a scientific manner for the
purpose of extracting, raising, grading, screening, sizing,
sorting and stacking ores and also in respect of schedule
area shown in the Schedule to this Agreement for which the
first party has to submit the proof of lawful right to carry on
Page 9 of 15
ST/21873/2015
mining operations based on present grant of lease or renewal
thereof to the Second Party. The Second Party is bound and
liable to carry out the mining operations as per the
requirement of mining safety and other applicable laws.
Clause 9: The First Party agrees to permit the Second Party
to excavate and extract the iron ore/minerals and carry on
all incidental operations peacefully and in compliance of
statutory obligations.
Clause 11: The First Party hereby agrees that the Second
Party shall appoint a qualified Mining Engineer or Engineers
as Designated Persons or Person on its roll and depute these
persons (s) to the First Party for the operations of the mines
for signing all papers, documents, etc relating to Mining
Safety, Geological Department, Forest Department, Pollution
Control and other Agency as Authorised Signatory on behalf
of the First Party for smooth and efficient mining and related
operations of the mines.
Clause 12: The Second Party during the continuance of this
agreement systematically extract, grade and sort out the
extracted iron ore/minerals from the said mine and deliver
to the notified buyers ex-pit head as directed by the First
Party without any interruption.
Clause 16: The Second Party shall:
(a) Lay and form and maintain such roads within the mining
area which should be motorable for movement of trucks,
machinery, etc;
(b) Lay such internal roads to stockyards, dumping yards,
waste dumping yards, etc;
(c) Also lay such internal roads and develop all such areas
inside the Scheduled property that may be required for
mining and all activities incidental and ancillary activities
connected therewith;
(d) Clear overburden in the Scheduled property as may be
necessary for carrying out the mining operations in a
systematic manner and in conformity with statutory
requirements, and;
(e) Remove the debris that is required to be removed for the
purpose of mining operations;
(f) Carry out such works as may be required to enable it to
carry out mining operations discharging its other obligations
under this Agreement fulfilling all the statutory requirements
under the relevant mining laws;
(g) Be entitled to put up temporary structures like crushing
and screening plant, electrical poles and
overhead/underground cables, office, huts, sheds, store
Page 10 of 15
ST/21873/2015
house or any other structures that may be necessary for
carrying out mining operations and shall comply with all
such requirements of law that govern erection of such
structures
As per the Mines and Regulations.
Clause 21: The First Party hereby agrees to pay to the
Second Party a sum of Rs. 188/- per metric ton to every ton
of calibrated Iron Ore, Rs 25/- per MT of Iron Ore fines
raised and generated as given in SCHEDULE "D".
It is agreed by and between the Parties that the Second Party
shall raise/produce Calibrated Iron ore, BHO of 10-30 mm
sizes and iron ore fines so generated thereon....
....
It is agreed between the Parties that Second Party shall endeavour to optimize and maintain the production level for mutual benefit of both the Parties and to supply the iron ore/materials so extracted from Jambunathanahalli iron ore mines to the contracted Purchasers of the First party.
7. A plain reading of the stipulations in the agreement referred to above, it is clear that the agreement entered into by the appellant comprises host of activities/services referred to and necessary and incidental to mining operations within the mining area mentioned in the said Agreement. Broadly, the activity comprises of exploration, development, excavation, extraction, grading, screening, sizing, sorting and stacking, etc. Also, the Appellant is required to built and maintain necessary infrastructure by way of building internal roads, office premises etc. within the mining area in carrying out the mining activities. For undertaking all the activities, the appellant received consideration of Rs.188/- per metric tonne of calibrated iron ore and Rs.25/- per metric tonne of iron ore fines raised and generated, thus, the activities undoubtedly indicate that the appellant has provided services which are akin to the category of 'mining of minerals' service inserted in the Finance Act,1994 with effect from 1.6.2007. The activities undertaken by the appellant are composite in nature and involves not merely production of minerals but services before production and after production of the said minerals including building and maintenance of necessary infrastructure; hence, rightly covered under the scope of mining operations and not under 'Business Auxiliary service'.
Page 11 of 15ST/21873/2015
8. Clause (v) of the Business Auxiliary Service reads as follows:
"Clause (v) of "Business Auxiliary Service" as defined in Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994 reads as under:
[(19) "business auxiliary service means any service in relation to,
(i) ...... (iv)
(v) production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client;
but does not include any information technology service and any activity that amounts to "manufacture" within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
9. The taxable entry of 'Mining of minerals, oil or gas" defined under Section 65(105)(zzzy) reads as follows:
"65(105)(zzzzy) - "taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by any other person, in relation to mining of minerals, oil or gas".
10. A comparison of both the entries in the context of the present Agreement, we find that mining service is more appropriate entry in comparison to Business Auxiliary Service which broadly covers activities of production or processing on behalf of the client, therefore, applying principles of classification mentioned under Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, the more specific description be preferred to the General description. Besides, we find that after introduction of the levy on mining operation, Circular No.334/1/2007-TRU has been issued by the Board on 28.02.2007 explaining the "Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas' service at para 6.2 of the said Circular which reads as follows:
"6.2 Mining Service [section 65(105)(zzzy)] : Presently, geological, geophysical or other prospecting, surface or sub- surface surveying or map-making services relating to location or exploration of deposits of mineral, oil or gas are leviable to service tax under "survey and exploration of mineral service" [section 65(105)(zzv)]. Services such as -Page 12 of 15
ST/21873/2015 • site formation and clearance, and excavation and earth moving, drilling wells for production/exploitation of hydrocarbons (development drilling) • well testing and analysis services • sub-contracted services such as deploying workers and machinery for extraction/breaking of rocks into stones, sieving, grading, etc. • outsourced services, provided for mining are individually classified under the appropriate taxable service. Services provided in relation to mining of mineral, oil and gas are comprehensively covered under this proposed service. With this, services provided in relation to both exploration and exploitation of mineral, oil or gas will be comprehensively brought under the service tax net."
11. Later, another Circular No.232/2/2006-CX.4 was issued on 12.11.2007 wherein paragraph 4 categorically clarifies that mining services are not leviable to service tax prior to 01.06.2007 which reads as follows:
"4 Coal cutting or mineral extraction and lifting them up to the pithead :
These activities are essential integral processes and are part of mining operations. As stated earlier, mining activity has been made taxable by legislation under the Finance Act, 2007 (w.e.f. 1-6-2007). Prior to this date, such activities, being part of mining operations itself are not subjected to service tax. Therefore, no service tax is leviable on such activities prior to the said date."
12. Analysing the circulars mentioned above, it is clear that in the first circular it is clearly acknowledged that the proposed levy on mining services, earlier subjected to levy of service tax at different stages of winning of minerals e.g. 'survey and exploration of mineral service", 'site formation service', etc. had been subjected to service tax under individual entry. In the second circular, it is further clarified that the activities of coal cutting or mineral extraction and lifting them up to pithead being essential for and integral to the process of mining activity, cannot be subjected to service tax prior to 01.06.2007. Therefore, bringing all the activities/services necessary for Page 13 of 15 ST/21873/2015 winning of minerals under the scope of clause (v) of Business Auxiliary Service would be contrary to the said circulars which is binding on the department and also in consonance with the levy of mining service brought into the scope of service tax from 01.6.2007.
13. Recently, the Tribunal following the circulars and the judgments rendered earlier in the case of M/s. G. S. Atwal & Co. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Kolkata vide Final Order No.75533/2023 considering and comparing the three competing services viz. Cargo Handling service, Business Auxiliary Service and Site Formation and clearance, excavation and demolition services with that of 'mining services' held that the activities carried out by the appellants, which are akin to the services rendered by the Appellant in the present case, fall under the scope of mining operations, hence, leviable to tax w.e.f. From 01.06.2007.
14. The reliance placed by the Ld. A.R. for the revenue on the judgement of the honourable Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Sesa Goa(I) Ltd.'s case in support of his contention that extraction of Iron Ore is not a simple processing activity but results into production of iron ore, hence covered under the scope of BAS, will not be of much help. In the said case the Hon'ble High Court was confronted with the issue under the income tax act where the question was whether the assessee is entitled for deduction on account of investment allowance when the assessee is engaged only in processing activity not in production and manufacture of any article or thing. Referring to the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various high Courts, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the direction on account of investment allowance be admissible as it cannot be said that extraction of ore would not amount to 'production'. We do not find such is the question raised in the present case. The issue involved in the present case is, whether the host of activities/service carried out by the appellant under the Raising agreement, result in the nature of service mentioned under Page 14 of 15 ST/21873/2015 clause(v) of Business Auxiliary Service or 'Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas' services. Also, the Ld. A.R for the Revenue made an attempt to distinguish the case laws referred by the appellant submitting that the nature of competing service involved in these cases is different i.e., Site formation service, cargo Handling Service etc. hence not applicable to the present case. The said argument is devoid of merit. Reading the circulars and relevant entries, it is clear that the services provided by the appellant squarely fall under the category of mining services and in all these cases it has been consistently held that Mining service involves a host of activities and rendered under a composite contract which cannot be divided into individual components/service for levy of service tax on each service separately; and observed all these activities combined are rightly classifiable under 'Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas' service leviable to service tax w.e.f 01.6.2007.
15. In view of above, the impugned Order is devoid of merit and accordingly set aside. The Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in Open Court.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv Page 15 of 15