9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 386 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - Works contract service - Held that - According to the dictionary meaning, in respect and in relation to are the same. Further as submitted by the learned counsel this Tribunal had occasioned to consider the very same issue in the case of SEW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. In the Misc. Order No.21369/2014 dt. 11/06/2014 in that case, this Tribunal after considering the meaning of airport, aerodrome, appertainment etc. came to the conclusion that building constructed for air cargo agency near the airport is excluded from the definition of works contract service. In this case also, we are unable to accept the stand taken by the Revenue that MLCP just because is available to others also for use cannot be considered as a facility for air passengers. In our opinion, it has to be considered as a part of the airport and the activity has to be taken as the one in relation to airport. Therefore in our opinion, appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case on merits - stay granted.
Issues:
Classification of service under works contract for construction of multi level car parking (MLCP) at New Delhi Airport. Analysis: The appellant constructed a MLCP for New Delhi Airport under a works contract between February 2009 to February 2011. The Revenue contended that the MLCP facility cannot be included under passenger facility as it is used by passengers and others. A demand for service tax of Rs. 9,69,78,242/- was confirmed with interest and penalties. The definition of works contract service excludes works contract in respect of airports, among other things. The main issue is whether the construction of MLCP can be considered an activity in respect of the airport. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a building for air cargo agency near an airport, which was excluded from the definition of works contract service. The Tribunal concluded that the MLCP should be considered a part of the airport and the activity related to the airport. Therefore, the appellant made a prima facie case on merits. Consequently, the requirement of predeposit was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted for 180 days from the date of the order.
|
