Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi: In an appeal challenging the order dated 30-10-2009, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-I, the bench of Dilip Gupta, J. (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the services like wireline logging, perforation and other wireline related services involving mechanical jobs like cutting, puncture, plug/packer setting, cable splicing, etc., which were undertaken by appellant at the time of drilling an oil well were integrally connected with the mining of oil or gas and had a direct nexus with the drilling of a well. Thus, these activities would be covered by the taxable category of mining service with effect from 01-06-2007.
Thus, the Tribunal opined that the activities undertaken by appellant could not be classified under ‘technical testing and analysis’ service (‘TTA services’) as defined under section 65(106) of the Finance Act, 1994 (‘the Act’) and deserved classification under ‘mining services’ made taxable under section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Act from 01-06-2007. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that appellant was entitled to refund with applicable rate of interest.
Background
Appellant was providing services in the exploration and production sector to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (‘ONGC’), Cairn Oil and Gas and Vedanta Limited. The services provided by appellant included wireline logging services, perforation services and other mechanical jobs. These services were provided by appellant in the mineral oil wells of ONGC at the onshore and offshore locations in the western, eastern and southern regions of India and in the oil wells of Cairn. Appellant contended that for performing these activities below the ground, it had to deploy sophisticated electronic tools, called logging tools which could work in hostile environment with extreme pressures and temperatures.
Appellant contended that it believed that after the introduction of the taxable category of TTA services, it would be liable to service tax, so it registered itself under the said category and started paying service tax on the consideration received by it under the contracts. However, in June 2004 and thereafter, appellant was informed by ONGC that wireline logging services would not be covered under TTA services and so not leviable to service tax. Therefore, appellant stopped depositing/recovering service tax for wireline logging, perforation and other mechanical jobs provided by it to ONGC with effect from September 2004 and informed this fact to the department.
Subsequently, appellant also filed three refund applications paid as service tax during December 2003 to November 2004. However, refunds were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by orders dated 28-09-2007. An appeal was filed by appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was also rejected by the order dated 30-10-2009. Thus, appellant filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 30-10-2009. Appellant also registered itself under the taxable category of ‘mining service’ and started discharging service tax on the activities performed for ONGC and Cairn from 01-06-2007. Appellant disclosed this fact to the department and declared the service under the category of mining services.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Tribunal examined the scope of the work to be provided by appellant in contract dated 08-04-2002 entered between appellant and ONGC and observed that appellant was required to provide ten wireline logging units for logging, perforation and related activities. The Tribunal opined that the activities undertaken by appellant did not involve testing or analysis, and the function required to be performed by appellant was strictly limited to the scope of measuring different parameters related to the oil rigs, and additionally, perforation, which had no relation to testing and analysis services. The Tribunal opined that the logging was the process of recording measurements of various properties of rock and fluid at various depths in a well, and perforation was a purely mechanical activity whereby holes/perforations were shot in the casing or liners.
The Tribunal opined that the services like wireline logging, perforation and other wireline related services involving mechanical jobs like cutting, puncture, plug/packer setting, cable splicing, etc., which were undertaken by appellant at the time of drilling an oil well were integrally connected with the mining of oil or gas and had a direct nexus with the drilling of a well. Thus, these activities would be covered by the taxable category of mining service with effect from 01-06-2007.
Further regarding the issue that whether the activity carried by appellant would fall under TTA services prior to 01-06-2007, the Tribunal held that the activities carried out by appellant with effect from 01-06-2007 would fall under mining service made taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Act as admitted to the department also, and so service tax under TTA services could not be charged from appellant prior to 01-06-2007.
Thus, the Tribunal opined that the activities undertaken by appellant could not be classified under TTA services as defined under section 65(106) of the Act and deserved classification under ‘mining services’ made taxable under section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Act from 01-06-2007. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and held that appellant was entitled to refund with applicable rate of interest.
[Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. v. CST, 2024 SCC OnLine CESTAT 293, Order dated 01-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: B.L. Narasimhan and Kunal Agarwal, Advocates;
For the Respondent: P.K. Sinha and Shri Harshvardhan, Authorized Representatives for the respondent
