9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking a definitive view whether such activities will be liable to Service Tax under the category of Section 65 (39a) of the Act. Since the relevant agreements have not been produced for our perusal, we are left with no option but to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo decision after perusing the relevant contracts with DMRC. It is made clear that the dropping of Service Tax in respect of Delhi Jal Board has not been challenged by Revenue. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/COD/4477/2012 ST/CROSS/4476/2012 Appeal No. ST/2258/2012-DB - FINAL ORDER No. 51851/2018 - Dated:- 17-5-2018 - Hon ble, Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Hon ble, Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri Sanjay Jain, DR f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment is not disputing the dropping of Service Tax demand. However, the Department is of the view that the activities carried out for DMRC are different and cannot be treated in the same manner as the activity carried out for Delhi Jal Board. ii. Ld. DR further submitted that the activities for DMRC will fall under Section 65 (39a) read with Section 65 (105) (zzd) of the Act. He submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in treating the activity undertaken for DMRC as the same as the activity carried out for Delhi Jal Board. iii. He submitted that the activities undertaken for DMRC are liable to be classified under Works Contract Service which will be liable to Service Tax after the introduction of this category in the statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said activity will not be covered under the category of Erection Commission or Installation Service under Section 65 (39a) of the Finance Act. 11. Revenue, in the present appeal has sought to differentiate between the work carried out to DMC as well as DJB. The Revenue is not disputing the dropping of the Service Tax demand in respect of DJB but have argued that the activity undertaken for DMRC is not exclusively pertaining to laying of pipeline and the said activity will fall within the definition of Section 65 (39a). 12. In the cross objections filed on behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the activity itself will fall under Works Contract Service and not under Section 65 (39a) read with 65 (105) (zzd). 13. The Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
