9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have done the work of clearing/ supplying laying and jointing the concrete pipes, construction of concrete cradle bedding for these pipes and other related works as a contractor for U.P. Jal Nigam and have received payment against the said work/ service. It appeared to Revenue that the said work/ service provided by the appellant falls under the category of 'Work Contract Service'. If further appeared that the service rendered by the appellant became wholly exempted from taxable service vide Notification No. 12/2012-S.T. dated 17.03.2012 as amended by Notification No 25/2012-ST, it provided exemption to Service provided to the Government or local authority by way of erection, construction, maintenance, repair, alteration, renovation or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , excluding the issue whether works contract was a taxable service prior to 01.06.2007. All parties identified for disposition by this Bench. Revenue does not demur. The issues presented for our consideration are: Issues: A) Whether laying of pipelines for lift irrigation systems, transmission and distribution of drinking water or sewerage, undertaken for Government/ Government undertakings should be classified under ECIS as erection, commission or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise; or installation of plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, enumerated in Section 65 (105) (zzd) and defined Section 65(39a), during 16.06.2005 to 31.05.2007; or must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, by applying principles of classification set out in Section 65A(2) (a) & (b) and thus fall outside the ambit of levy, since the activity is not primarily for the purpose of commerce or industry; or whether a contrary view that clause (e) being and independent entry, activities falling thereunder would be taxable even if the rendition of service thereby or thereunder, was not primarily for non commercial or non industrial purposes; and (E) Where execution of the whole or a part of the work is subcontracted on back to back basis by the main contractor to the Government/ Government undertakings, whether levy of service tax in the hands of appellant (main contractor) is valid under WCS/ in the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. He further urges that as the Ld. Commissioner did not have the benefit of the law pronounced by the Larger Bench, the matter may be remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits, keeping in view the findings of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal. 4. Ld. A.R. for Revenue relies on the impugned order. The Ld. A.R. further agrees that the Ld. Commissioner did not have given the benefit of order of the Larger Bench and accordingly, this Tribunal may pass an appropriate orders. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we deem it fit and proper in the interest of justice and accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner/ adjudicating authority for a denovo decision on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
