9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard, Akashardham, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, U.P. Jal Nigam Board. These organisations are generally engaged in providing public services which are not in the nature of services for commerce or industry, of course, in some of the project there may be some element of commercial or industrial services as well. Further, a perusal of contract, which is also not disputed by the Revenue indicates that these are in the nature of composite work contract which included supply of material along with the services. This issue has been decided by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] judgement whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered with the Department and discharging service tax liability accordingly. During the course of their business activities they undertook various activities such as design, engineering, supply of equipments/goods, fabrication, civil construction, erection, commissioning, installation, operation and maintenance of the STP/ETP during relevant period for the government and other private entities viz: (a) Delhi Jal Board, Akshardham; (b) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon; (c) Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad; (d) U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow; and (e) Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore. 2.1 It is the case of the Department that the appellant did not pay service tax under the category of CIC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro (supra), as the demand is not raised against the 'work contract service'. Therefore, the confirmation of demand for the period from 1.6.2007 also cannot be sustained on account of following decisions of this Tribunal: (i) URC Construction Private Limited Vs. Commissioner - 2017-TIOL-1214-CESTAT-MAD; (ii) Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar Vs. Commissioner - 2017-TIOL-3230-CESTAT-MUM; (iii) Commissioner Vs. MDD Medical Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. - Final Order No. 57267/2017 dated 16.10.2017; (iv) Srishti Construction Vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana - 2017 (12) TMI CESTAT-Chandigarh; (v) Raj Kishan & Co. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2018 (12) TMI 83 CESTAT-Chandigarh. 3.1 In addition to above, the learned Advocate subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding public services which are not in the nature of services for commerce or industry, of course, in some of the project there may be some element of commercial or industrial services as well. Further, a perusal of contract, which is also not disputed by the Revenue indicates that these are in the nature of 'composite work contract' which included supply of material along with the services. This issue has been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Larsen & Toubro (supra) judgement wherein it is held that the 'composite work contract' is not chargeable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007. It has also been held that if demand is not raised under the category of 'work contract service' for the period after 1.6.2007 the demand under any othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T liability was discharged on the goods or not is irrelevant in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro and Ors. We, therefore, have to merely determine the scope of taxability of 'works contract service' rendered before and after 1st June, 2007 under the Finance Act, 1994. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus '24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines "taxable service" as "any service provided". All the services referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce' had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than 'commercial or industrial construction service'. It is already established in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is liable to be invoked only for construction simpliciter. Therefore, there is no scope for vivisection to isolate the service component of the contract. 12. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed." 7. Following the above decisions, we set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
