9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the adjudication order imposing penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The cause for the delay is stated to be that the petitioner assumed that the other assessee namely the company of which the petitioner herein is Managing Director would prefer an appeal and he is not required to prefer a separate appeal. In the circumstances, we condone the delay but on condition that the petitioner remits costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the credit of Revenue within two weeks. ST/Stay/309 & 648/2012 1. The petitioners/appellants seek waiver of predeposit and stay of further proceedings for realization of the liability to service tax, interest and penalties as assessed by the adjudication order dt. 28/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the works involved in several agreements between the petitioner and the State Government separately, for the period 16/06/2005 to 31/05/2007; and for 01/06/2007 to 31/03/2010, in paragraphs 16.1 and 17.2 of the adjudication order, set out in a tabular format. The substantive appeal ST/501/2012 presents, a classification dispute. 3. For the period prior to 01/06/2007 while the petitioner contends that the services provided ought to be classified as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS for short) enumerated in Section 65(105)(zzq) read with Section 65(25b) of the Act, Revenue proceeded and the adjudicating authority assessed the services as falling within the taxable service enumerated in Section 65(105)(zzd) read with Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed work would bring it within the scope of ECIS, the Tribunal concluded that as these works are only for regulation and monitoring flow of water in the pipeline, these components of works were components of the generic activity of construction of pipeline. 6. Prima facie , on analysis of the several contracts summarized in para 16.1 of the adjudication order, considered in the context of the definition of ECIS and CICS (as these provisions were during the period prior to 01/06/2007), we are of the view that the works executed by the petitioner more appropriately fall within sub-clause (b) of Section 65(25b) of the Act and are therefore CICS and not ECIS as concluded by the learned adjudicating authority. Section 65(25b) clearly limits the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the petitioner also refers the observations in para 18.5 of the adjudication order wherein the learned Commissioner rejects the contentions of the petitioner based on Board's Circular No.116/10/2009 dt. 15/09/2009 (wherein at para 3 it was clarified that construction activity in relation to dams for Governments even through on EPC/turn key basis, are excluded from the scope of Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act in view of the provision excluding works in respect of, inter alia , dams), by concluding that "in the instant case, it is a clear case of pipeline construction". 8. At the current stage of the proceedings and on the basis of the analysis in the adjudication order, it is not very clear whether all works and the associated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
