CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 88415 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 37-41/ST/RN/CMR/MII/13-14 dated

31.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II)

M/s Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. .… Appellant New Standard Engg. Estate (NSE), Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063 Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax …. Respondent Mumbai-II

9^th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Jijibhoy Lane, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Appearance:

Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Aditya Jain & Ms. Nidhi Doshi, Advocates for the Appellant Ms. S. Varalakshmi, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85931/2025 Date of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date of Decision: 12.06.2025 PER: S.K. MOHANTY Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants herein had entered into an agreement with M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and M/s Enron Oil Gas India Ltd., for rendering services of Oil Well logging, which include surveying the oil well by qualified engineers, to measure technical aspects like magnetism, resistivity and radioactive emission of the formation and in generating data to infer various parameters such as thickness, porosity and component of the formations. In pursuance to the agreement, the appellants had also provided the technical interpretation to give clear picture of the down hole formation contents at various levels of the oil well. Considering the activities undertaken by the appellants, the Department had interpreted that such activity should fall under the taxable category of ‘Consulting Engineer Services’, defined under Section 65(13) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by the Department, seeking confirmation of the service tax demand for provision of the Consulting Engineer Services, which culminated into the impugned order dated 16.04.2014, wherein the learned adjudicating authority has confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.6,68,20,433/- along with interest and also imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.04.2014, the appellants have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the activities undertaken by the appellants should appropriately be classifiable as ‘mining services’, defined under Section 65(105)(zzzy) ibid, which came into the tax net w.e.f. 01.06.2007. Thus, it was contended that since the period of dispute is from 1997 to 2003, which was prior to the date of insertion of the taxable entry of ‘mining service’ in the statute book, the activities undertaken by the appellants, even though fall under the scope and ambit of mining services, but shall not be taxable, inasmuch as such taxable entry was introduced for the first time in the month of June, 2007. He further submitted that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra, in view of the order passed by Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the appellants themselves, reported in 2023 (12) TMI 848 – CESTAT NEW DELHI. He also submitted that Civil Appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order (supra) passed by the Tribunal was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, negating the views of the department that the service in dispute should not be categorized under the taxable entry of Consulting Engineer Services. Learned Advocate has also relied upon the order dated 04.09.2014 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – 2015 (37) STR 634 (Tri-Mum), to state that considering the nature of activity involved in the said case, which is identical to the case in hand, the Tribunal has held that the activities undertaken by M/s Halli