2019 (6) TMI 1319 - AT - Service Tax

Scope of service tax - work undertaken by the respondent was in respect of growing of grass for preparing the Rugby field for Commonwealth Games-2010 - activity of Horticulture - Horticulture, a branch of agriculture - HELD THAT - The revenue did not raise any new ground in the grounds of appeal and all the issues raised by revenue in the ground of appeal are repetition of show cause notice which has already been adjudicated upon by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and held the same to be not tenable - there is no ground raised by revenue to challenge the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/SVTAX/000/APPL-I/43/2015-16 dated 30/04/2015.
2. Classification of the activity as Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earth Moving and Demolition Service.
3. Consideration of the work undertaken by the respondent as Horticulture activity.
4. Exclusion of the activity from service tax based on the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30/04/2015. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original treating the activity as Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation, Earth Moving, and Demolition Service. The respondent's work involved growing grass for preparing the Rugby field for the Commonwealth Games-2010. The Commissioner considered the contract details with M/s RITS Ltd. and concluded that the activity fell under Horticulture, a branch of Agriculture, which was excluded from service tax as per the clarification by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

2. The revenue did not raise any new ground in the appeal, and the issues raised were repetitions of the show cause notice. The learned Commissioner had already adjudicated and found them not tenable. The Appellate Tribunal noted that no new grounds were presented by the revenue to challenge the Commissioner's findings. Consequently, there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the rejection of the appeal filed by the revenue.

3. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner and rejected the revenue's appeal. Additionally, the Cross objection in the form of written submissions was also disposed of in line with the main appeal decision. The judgment was dictated in court, affirming the decision to uphold the exclusion of the activity from service tax based on the horticulture classification and the relevant clarification issued by the tax authorities.