Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bla Projects Pvt Ltd vs Service Tax-Ii, Kolkata on 29 January, 2026
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Appeal No. 75286 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 75/COMMR/ST-II/KOL/2016-17 dated
21.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kendriya Utpad Shulk
Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107)
M/s.BLA Projects Private Limited : Appellant
[Formerly known as "M/s. Banowari Lal Agarwalla P. Ltd."]
Indicon Viva, 3rd Floor, 53, Leela Roy Sarani (Gariahat Road),
Kolkata - 700 019, West Bengal
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax-II : Respondent
Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road,
Kolkata - 700 107, West Bengal
AND
Service Tax Appeal No. 75568 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 94/COMMR/ST-II/KOL/2016-17 dated
27.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kendriya Utpad Shulk
Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107)
M/s. BLA Projects Private Limited : Appellant
[Formerly known as "M/s. Banowari Lal Agarwalla P. Ltd."]
Indicon Viva, 3rd Floor, 53, Leela Roy Sarani (Gariahat Road),
Kolkata - 700 019, West Bengal
VERSUS
Commissioner of Service Tax-II : Respondent
Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road,
Kolkata - 700 107, West Bengal
APPEARANCE:
Shri Kartik Kurmy, Advocate, for the Appellant
Shri Prasenjit Das, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NOs. 75176-75177 / 2026
DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 29.01.2026
Page 2 of 12
Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB
ORDER:[PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN] Service Tax Appeal No. 75286 of 2017 has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 75/COMMR/ST- II/KOL/2016-17 dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107, wherein the demand of Service Tax of Rs.18,95,98,613/- has been confirmed for the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13, along with interest and equal amount of tax as penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
1.1. Service Tax Appeal No. 75568 of 2017 has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 94/COMMR/ST- II/KOL/2016-17 dated 27.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107, wherein the demand of Service Tax of Rs.3,47,07,998/- has been confirmed for the period 2013-14, along with interest. Penalty of Rs.34,70,800/-has also been imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
1.2. As the issue involved in both the appeals are the same, they are taken up together for decision by a common order.
2. M/s. BLA Projects Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (now 2013). The appellant was formerly known as M/s Banowari Lal Agarwalla Pvt. Ltd. They are registered under Finance Act, 1994 vide Registration Certificate bearing No.AACCB0089RST001.
Page 3 of 12Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB 2.1. On the basis of issues raised in EA-2000 Audit, a Show Cause Notice dated 18.02.2015, was issued to the Appellant demanding service tax of Rs.44,86,10,846/- (Rs.20,06,46,035/- on Transportation + Rs.24,79,64,811/- on Civil Construction) under the category of "mining services"
for the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 by invoking extended period of limitation. For issuing the Notice, the officers have taken the figures available in the Profit & Loss Account. It is alleged that the appellant has carried out mining, handling and transportation within the Mines/outside the Mines which is taxable under "mining service" by way of "handling and transportation of coal/mineral within the mines or outside the mines"; that the said activities are in relation to mining of coal and hence, are taxable under the category of "mining service". Thus, it has been alleged that the appellant has short paid Service Tax of Rs.20,06,46,035/- under the category of "mining services" to this extent. The said Show Cause Notice also alleged that the value of Civil Construction Work of Rs.222,74,22,285/- (Rs.254,05,65,926/- minus Rs.31,31,43,641/-) is includible under the category of "mining service" and thus, the appellant was also held liable to pay Service Tax of Rs.24,79,64,811/- on such construction service under the category of "mining service".
2.2. Another periodical Show Cause Notice dated 21.03.2016 was issued by the Ld. Commissioner for the year 2013-14, demanding service tax of Rs.3,48,00,278/- under the category of "mining service" for the year 2013-14 on the basis of figures available in the Profit & Loss Account. In the said Notice, it is alleged that the services like handling of coal from pit head to any other location or for Page 4 of 12 Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB transportation outside the mines, crushing of Coal, Loading Coal into tipper and other allied works are part of "mining services", but appellant had purportedly mis-classified the aforesaid services under the category of "Goods Transportation Agency Services".
2.3. The said Show cause Notices were adjudicated vide the impugned Orders-in-Original dated 21.10.2016 and 27.12.2016, confirming the demands of Service Tax, along with interest and penalty thereon, as mentioned in paragraph 1 supra. The Ld. Commissioner has dropped the remaining tax demand made in the Notices. Aggrieved by the confirmation of the demands of service tax along with interest and penalty, the appellant has filed by this appeal.
3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in the impugned Orders, the activities of pure Transportation and Civil Construction work were classified under the category of "mining services" treating the same as activities undertaken "in relation to" mining. In this regard, he submitted that the said activity of transportation of coal cannot be classified under the categories of mining services as the said services are appropriately classifiable under the category of "Goods Transport Agency Services/Construction Service". It is also submitted that the activities for transportation of coal, etc., are "logistics services" and are "post mining" in nature and have no direct or proximate connection with mining services. Accordingly, it is the appellant's contention that the said activity cannot be classified under "mining services" under Section 65(105)(zzzy). In support, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has Page 5 of 12 Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB pointed to the fact that in trade, logistic service/construction providers and transporter are never understood as "mining service" providers.
3.1. In support of his contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Raipur v. Singh Transporters reported in 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.), wherein it has held that transportation of coal within mines is taxable under GTA Services and not mining services.
3.2. Reliance has also been placed by the appellant on the decision of the Tribunal in the following cases, wherein it has been held that transportation of Coal within or outside the mines are not taxable under the category of "mining service": -
i. BLA INFRA-GKMWPL (JV) Vs. CCE reported in 2025 (3) TMI-266-CESTAT-KOLKATA;
ii. BLA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2025-VIL-2197-CESTAT-KOL-ST;
iii. Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST reported in 2024 (3) TMI-1106-CESTAT-Kolkata;
iv. Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCGST reported in 2025 (2) TMI 1279-CESTAT-KOLKATA;
v. Calcutta Industrial Supply Corporation Vs. CCE reported in 2024 (9) TMI-926-CESTAT-Kolkata;
vi. NKAS Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST in Service Tax Appeal No.75679 of 2017;
vii. Maa Kalika Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in (2023) 8 Centax 273 (Tri.- Cal.) Page 6 of 12 Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB 3.3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant further relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. UOI reported in 2009 (14) STR 289 (Bom.), as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association reported in (2011) 21 STR 3 (S.C.).
3.4. He further relied upon the decision in the case of Jain Carrying Corp. Vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2014 (12) TMI 506 - CESTAT-New Delhi, wherein it has been held that the contract may be composite but the services stand clearly mentioned separately with separate rates and hence, cannot be taxed as a single service; the said decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Jain Carrying Corporation reported in 2015 (39) STR J370 (SC).
3.5. Attention has also been drawn to the decision in the case of Jai Jawan Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T., New Delhi reported in 2015 (37) STR 509 (Tri. Del.), wherein it was held in respect of contracts/agreements for tipper loading, transportation and wagon loading of coal, where work orders prescribed separate rates, that such contracts are to be treated as separate contracts in one instrument.
3.6. Furthermore, the appellant has relied upon the ratio of the decision in the case of BLA Infra (JV) Vs. C.G.S.T. & C.Ex., Kolkata, reported in 2025 (8) TMI 2 CESTAT KOLKATA, wherein, while dealing with similar contract with separate rates, considering the fact that the appellant was paying Service Tax on tipper loading and wagon loading, has held that but for Page 7 of 12 Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB transportation and breaking of coal, it is an ancillary activity and the main activity is the transportation of coal by road; accordingly, the demand of Service Tax was set aside by the Tribunal.
3.7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also raised arguments on the ground of limitation, contending that the demand in the instant case is barred by normal period of limitation as provided under Section 73 of the Finance act, 1994; that the dispute in the instant case relates to the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 (SCN-1) whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.02.2015 i.e. beyond normal period of limitation of one year under Section 73(1) of the Act. He also states that the proceedings in the instant case were initiated on the basis of findings in EA 2000 Audit of the balance sheet, Profit & Loss account, Books of Accounts, etc., and not based on any new facts; hence, it is contended that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case. In this context, the appellant has relied on the decision in the case of GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Cochin, reported in 2017 (49) S.T.R 242 (Tri-Bang.) wherein the Tribunal, Bangalore held that suppression of facts cannot be alleged and extended period cannot be invoked if demand is based an audit of assessee books of accounts.
4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue has reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
Page 8 of 12Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB
6. We observe that in the present case, the activities undertaken by the appellant are in the nature of pure transportation and civil construction work. In the impugned orders, these activities were classified under the category of "mining services"
treating the same as activities undertaken "in relation to" mining. In this regard, we are of the view that the said activity of transportation of coal and construction services cannot be classified under the category of "mining services" as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994. In fact, it is observed that the said services are appropriately classifiable under the category of "Goods Transport Agency Services Service". In support of our view, we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Raipur v. Singh Transporters [2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.)], wherein it has been held that transportation of coal within mines is taxable under GTA Services and not mining services. However, the impugned demand has been raised under the category of "mining service". As the said services cannot be classified as mining services, we are of the considered view that the demand raised against the appellant under the said category cannot be sustained.
6.1. The same view has also been taken by this Tribunal in the case of BLA INFRA-GKMWPL (JV) Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bolpur [2025 (3) TMI 266 - CESTAT-KOLKATA=Final order No. 75495 of 2025 dated 20.02.2025 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75313 of 2016]. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is reproduced below:Page 9 of 12
Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB "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. The Ld. Commissioner issued a Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2014 alleging that the Appellant is liable to pay Service Tax of Rs.51,27,152/ on Transportation of Coal within the mining area with incidental loading, which is taxable under "Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Service" as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2.2. The said notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner by the impugned Order, wherein he has confirmed demand of Service Tax along with interest under the category of "Mining Services". He has also imposed equal amount of tax as penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
.
.
.
6.2. We 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 defined under Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994. We also observe that he activities of the Appellant "Shifting and Feeding of Coal into the Hoppers" round the clock inside the Power Plants, were also categorized under 'Mining Page 10 of 12 Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB Service". We have perused the scope of works under all these contracts. We observe that the activity undertaken by the Appellant is mainly transportation of Coal, within the mining area and out side the mining area. The activity of transportation is most appropriately classifiable under "Goods Transport Agency Services" and the liability to pay Service Tax on the transportation service lies on the service receiver under the reverse charge mechanism. Accordingly, we hold that the transport services provided by the Appellant cannot be classified under the category of "Mining Services". We observe that this view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Singh Transporters reported in 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.). Relying on the said decision, this tribunal has taken the same view in the case of MaaKalika Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & CE reported in (2023) 8 Centax 273 (Tri.-Cal) wherein it has been held that transportation of coal within the mines is liable for service tax under the category of "Goods Transport Agency Services" and therefore the liability to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism lies on the service receivers..
Accordingly, we hold that the transportation service rendered by the Appellant within the mines and outside the mines are not chargeable to service tax under the category of 'Mining Services'. Similarly, the activities of Shifting and Feeding of Coal into the Hoppers"
has been carried out in the Power Plants and hence the same cannot be categorized as 'Mining Service'. Accordingly, we set aside the demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order on this count."
6.3. We observe that transport services are logistic services which are not understood as a mining activity in the common parlance. 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 classified under "Mining Services". Thus, by relying on the decisions cited supra, we hold that the demand of Service Tax under the category of 'Mining Page 11 of 12 Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB Services' is not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. As the demand itself is not sustained, the question of demanding interest or imposing penalties does not arise. Accordingly, we also set aside the demands of interest and penalties confirmed in the impugned order."
6.2. We also find that the demand in respect of the first Show Cause Notice (SCN-1) is barred by limitation. The dispute in respect of the said Notice pertains to the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 (SCN-1) whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.02.2015 i.e. beyond normal period of limitation of one year under Section 73(1) of the Act. Further, we note that the proceedings in the instant case were initiated on the basis of finding in EA 2000 Audit of the appellant's balance sheet, profit & loss account, books of accounts, etc., and not based on any new facts. Therefore, we find that suppression of facts with intention to evade tax on the part of the appellant has not been established in this case and hence, we hold that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case.
6.3. Thus, by relying on the decisions cited supra, we hold that the demands of Service Tax, confirmed in the impugned orders under the category of "mining service", are not sustainable and hence we set aside the same.
6.3.1. As the demands of Service Tax are found to be unsustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty thereon does not arise. Accordingly, we set aside the demand of interest as well as the penalties imposed, as confirmed in the impugned orders.
Page 12 of 12Appeal No(s).: ST/75286 & 75568/2017-DB
7. In the result, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals filed by the appellant, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court) Sd/-
(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sd/-
(K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sdd