Case Law Details
Messrs Darcy Reservoir Consultancy Services P Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT gone through the records, various submissions made and the case laws cited before us. We find that the case laws cited (Supra) by the appellant squarely covers their activities under ‘Survey And Exploration Of Minerals Service’ and Department has sought to disturb the classification given at the time of their registration as Test, Inspection And Certification Services, instead of “Technical Testing And Analysis Services” which was claimed since 12.01.2006 by them. Classification being a legal issue, the appellants can contest the same at any time specially when legal position brings greater clarity later on. We further find that the decisions relied upon by the appellants are inconsonance with board circular and largely covered the activities of the appellant’s under “Survey and Exploration of Minerals Service”. In any case, as the cited case laws shows, department itself issued Show Cause Notices for same type of services under various different service classification. Under, the circumstances the extended period with intent to evade cannot sustain. Accordingly, there being confusion in the mind of Department itself and position having become clear through case laws in years 2014 or around, the extended period of demand cannot be invoked.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The appellant during the relevant impugned period from 01.07.2003 to 30.11.2005, were providing services relating to Well Testing, Well Activation Works, Slick Line Services, Inspection and Monitoring of Well Testing Services, Inspection and Monitoring of Well Testing Services, Acquisition of Reservoir Data in relation to all exploration. As per the department, the activities were partly covered under the inspection and certification services. Accordingly, a SCN dated 17.10.2008, invoking extended period was issued to the appellants, who of their own had taken registration under Technical Testing and Analysis Services with effect from 12.01.2006. The demand by the department was confirmed as per Show Cause under Test Inspection and Certification Services on 20.07.2009 and aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
2. The Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decisions in the matter of M/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur Reported at -2015 (38) STR 421 (Tri.-Mum.) as well as on CST, Mumbai V/s. Fugro Geonics P. Ltd. as reported at 2014 (33) STR 170 (Tri.- Mum.) to support that activities like providing exploration report based on survey and retail expression of mineral deposit is the service in the nature of “Survey And Exploration Of Minerals Service” and is not “Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service” as was decided in the matter of M/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd (supra) and was also not Consulting Engineer’s Service as held out in M/s. Fugro Geonics Pvt Ltd case. He also relied upon the Board Circular F. No. 334/1/2007-TRU dated 28.02.2007 to draw support for his own classification of services under the head of “Survey and Exploration of Minerals Service”. He also pointed out that there was confusion all around within the department of classifying its activities under various services and clarity finally came around the year 2014 and 2015, when it was pronounced in above cited cases and the activities were finally covered under the “Survey And Exploration Of Minerals Service”.
3. The Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the finding of the Lower Authority. The activities of extracting minerals can cover extracting metallic or non-metallic mineral, and not oil and that the party did not pay Service Tax. He also pointed out that party having chosen to pay under “Technical Testing and Analysis Service” could not go around and now seek to discharge duty under “Survey and Exploration of Minerals Service”. He also justified invocation of extended period on the basis of conduct of the party.
4. We have gone through the records, various submissions made and the case laws cited before us. We find that the case laws cited (Supra) by the appellant squarely covers their activities under “Survey And Exploration Of Minerals Service” and Department has sought to disturb the classification given at the time of their registration as Test, Inspection And Certification Services, instead of “Technical Testing And Analysis Services” which was claimed since 12.01.2006 by them. Classification being a legal issue, the appellants can contest the same at any time specially when legal position brings greater clarity later on. We further find that the decisions relied upon by the appellants are inconsonance with board circular and largely covered the activities of the appellant’s under “Survey and Exploration of Minerals Service”. In any case, as the cited case laws shows, department itself issued Show Cause Notices for same type of services under various different service classification. Under, the circumstances the extended period with intent to evade cannot sustain. Accordingly, there being confusion in the mind of Department itself and position having become clear through case laws in years 2014 or around, the extended period of demand cannot be invoked.
5. Accordingly, we allow the appeal both on merits as well as limitation.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 14.02.2023)
