9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... University. Proceedings had been initiated against the appellants vide a SCN dt. 19.11.2011 on the grounds that the appellants had rendered taxable service under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 resulting in apparent tax liability of Rs. 6,15,809/- with interest thereon. The SCN dt. 19.11.2011 also proposed imposition of penalty under various provisions of law. Original authority vide an order dt. 4.6.2012 confirmed the tax liability as proposed in the notice and also imposed penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 21.12.2012 upheld the order of the original authority and hence this appeal. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive exemption only in respect of services provided in relation to transmission and distribution of electricity and the construction of control room would not qualify for exemption under that notification. ii) He reiterates the findings recorded in para 6.1 and 6.3 of the impugned order and relies on the following case laws : * M/s. G.D. Builders Vs. Union of India - 2013 (32) S.T.R. 673 (Del.); * M/s. BCC Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur - 2017 (52) S.T.R. 22 (Tri. - Del.); and * M/s. National Building Construction Corpn. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., Raipur - 2017 (51) S.T.R. 74 (Tri. - Del.). 4.1 After hearing both sides, we find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in his contention that the activities of construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o occasion to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra). Thus, the said decision, though refers to the fact that Works Contract Service was introduced with effect from 01.06.2007, has not taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra. Another case relied upon by the Ld. AR is the case of M/s. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (supra). The contention of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the construction activity carried out by them was in the nature of Works Contract and hence, not taxable prior to 01.06.2007. The same was not considered by the Tribunal relying upon the case of M/s. G.D. Builders (supra), which held that composite contrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
