2016 (1) TMI 703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m of pure supply of goods contract, construction of godown and fencing and other work done for Nagar Nigam etc. Considering all these facts and also the fact that they have discharged service tax of ₹ 7.38 lakhs already, we find it fit and proper to order for further deposit of ₹ 7.5 lakhs with proportionate interest - stay granted partly. - Service Tax Stay Application No. 59097 of 2013 in Appeal No. 58504 of 2013 - Stay Order No. 53356/2015 - Dated:- 12-10-2015 - SHRI G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Manish Gaur, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- The applicants ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g and fittings of pipelines and submersible pumps are not liable to service tax as the same cannot be considered under commercial construction or erection commissioning service. Service tax liability confirmed under this head is ₹ 5.48 lakhs ; (iii) Services rendered in respect of construction of godown for storage of agricultural products is not to be considered as for commercial building. Hence, no service tax is liable. Amount involved is ₹ 2.63 lakhs ; (iv) Construction of complex under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission and Rajiv Awaas Yojana are exempt under Notification No. 28/2010-ST. Tax amount involved ₹ 1 lakh ; (v) Activity relating to fencing or land scapping services rendered to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s a separate contract. Such argument is not justifiable. Regarding construction of godown, the learned AR stated that the said godowns were for storage of goods on consideration and as such even if agricultural products are stored, the same will not affect commercial nature of the building and the tax liability. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides. We find that, prima facie, the applicant is not liable for service tax for construction of independent houses, in view of the Tribunal s decision in Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai (supra). The service tax liability of the applicant for the period prior to 01/06/2007 is not on strong ground. Similarly, the tax liability under Jawaharlal Nehru National Ur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X