2014 (8) TMI 709 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Works Contract service - whether activity of the applicant for implementing water supply projects which included in certain cases construction of water treatment plant etc. to various municipalities and local authorities would come under Explanation (ii) (b) of Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act 1994 or under Explanation (ii) (e) of Section 65 (105) (zzzza) - Held that - applicant entered into contract for implementing water supply projects of the various municipalities and local authorities and the agreement particularly shows that it is to construct intake chamber providing ESR laying and jointing of MS HDPE pipeline, RCC/UG Sump, Filter plant, Stand Post, CT etc. It appears that Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Commissioning (EPC) project on the basis of turnkey basis are incidental to laying of pipeline. In the case of Megha Engineering (2014 (2) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE), the Tribunal granted unconditional stay holding that it is a case of pipeline construction. We have also noticed that after the case of Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), in the case of Sudhakar Polymers 2014 (8) TMI 708 - CESTAT BANGALORE , Tribunal granted unconditional stay on similar situation. It is a fit case for waiver of predeposit of dues arising from the impugned order. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act 1994 for water supply projects.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is whether the activities of the applicant, related to water supply projects for municipalities and local authorities, fall under Explanation (ii) (b) or Explanation (ii) (e) of Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act 1994. The Revenue argues that the activities constitute Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) projects, leading to a tax demand. The applicant contends that the projects involve laying pipelines and should be classified under sub-section (ii) (d) of the Act.

2. The applicant's representative highlights that the contracts primarily involve laying pipelines for water treatment units, emphasizing the specific nature of the work. Reference is made to previous Tribunal decisions and stays granted in similar cases. The Revenue's representative argues that the contracts are EPC projects based on the nature of the works and continuity in project maintenance, citing relevant Tribunal decisions.

3. Upon reviewing the contracts and relevant provisions of Section 65 (105) (zzzza), the Tribunal finds that the scope of the contracts mainly focuses on laying pipelines for water treatment units. Some contracts also include references to EPC projects on a turnkey basis, indicating a mix of activities. The Tribunal notes the importance of distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial projects in determining service tax liability.

4. The Tribunal examines the nature of the contracts and previous Tribunal decisions, particularly the case of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd., which dealt with EPC projects awarded by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal emphasizes the need to analyze the specifics of each contract to determine the appropriate classification under Section 65 (105) (zzzza).

5. Considering the details of the contracts and the specific activities involved in the water supply projects, the Tribunal concludes that the case warrants a waiver of predeposit of dues arising from the tax demand. The Tribunal grants the waiver and stays the recovery of dues until the appeal is disposed of, based on the interpretation of the contracts and relevant legal provisions.

6. In light of the above analysis and the specific details of the case, the Tribunal makes a decision in favor of the applicant, granting a waiver of predeposit and staying the recovery of dues until the appeal process is completed. The Tribunal's decision is based on a thorough examination of the contracts, the nature of the projects, and relevant legal provisions under Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act 1994.