Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Nidhi Mining Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 December, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 22118 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: ST/Stay/21385/2014 in ST/21229/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/21229/2014-DB [Arising out of BEL-EXCUS-000-COM-BHR-010-ST-13-14 dated 04/01/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , BELGAUM ] Nidhi Mining Pvt Ltd No. 106, Jaya Nagar, Ii Cross, Cantonment BELLARY - 00 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Belgaum NO. 71...CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate Swami Associates & Co. G-8, FORTUNA ICON APARTMENTS, JODIDHAR ASWATHAPPA FARM, BEHIND NAGARJUNA NAGAR, SAHKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE, - 560092 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 01/12/2014 Date of Decision: 01/12/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Appellant is engaged in the activity of iron ore mining and export and wind mill power generation. They received service of the transporters for shifting materials inside the mining area and for transportation of ore from the stock yard / railway station to the port. During the course of the audit, it was observed that appellants had not discharged appropriate service tax under the category of GTA service.
2. Learned counsel submitted that in respect of shifting of materials inside the mining area, the amount paid in respect of each consignment was less than Rs.1500/- or Rs.750/- per trip and therefore no tax was liable. As regards the demand for GTA service for transportation to the port, he submits that the benefit of abatement has not been allowed on the ground that appellant had failed to produce evidence that no CENVAT credit had been availed by the service provider. He submits that because of problems relating to mining during the relevant time in Karnataka during which CBI was investigating several cases and Honble Supreme Court was considering the dispute, the appellant could not participate in the adjudicating proceedings at all and he fairly agrees that several opportunities had been given to them as submitted by the learned AR. He submits that if the abatement benefit is extended, there is no liability on the appellant at all and he also agrees to deposit the interest payable within 12 weeks if the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of all the issues based on the evidences / documents / records that may be produced by them. We consider that this is to be a fair request. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) within twelve weeks and report compliance before the Commissioner. The Commissioner is requested to adjudicate the matter afresh after noting compliance with the above requirement and after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
3