9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the construction undertaken by the appellant was of a education institution, therefore, the service provided by the appellant to M/s Devi Shakuntala Thakral Charitable Foundation was not taxable - demand set aside. Whether it is a fact that appellant have provided work contract service to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation and Industrial Rail Warehousing Company after 01 July 2012 and as per the provisions of Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20 June 2012 - whether the appellant was only liable to pay 50% of service tax due on the services provided by them to above-mentioned cooperate bodies? - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that the construction activity undertaken by the appellant involved both supply of the goods as well as supply of the labour and services and, therefore, as per the definition of the work contract service and as held by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] , the activity of the appellant is rightly classifiable under the category of the work contract service as per the provisions of Section 65 (105) (zzzza) - The Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings of the order-in-original in his order. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant have submitted that they have entered into a contract with M/s Devi Shakuntala Thakral Charitable Foundation for construction of college building. The services of construction of college building, are exempted from payment of service tax vide Board Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17 September 2004. It has been the contention of the learned advocate that activity of commercial or industrial construction undertaken by him were not for any business or commerce it was for a charitable institution, who are engaged in providing college education to needy and deprived students. It has further been added that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their claim of exemption from payment of the service tax without giving any reason except that the completion certificate of the college building submitted by them was dated 16 March 2015 and, therefore, it has been held that the appellant should have paid the service tax as the exemption to non-commercial institutions has been done away with by the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1 July 2012. It has further been argued that the second component of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was to be paid by the corporate body namely M/s Central Warehousing Corporation. 4. We have also heard learned Departmental Representative who has reiterated the findings as given in the order-in-appeal. 5. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of the appeal record, we find that primarily there are two issues before us to decide ; firstly, whether the service tax has wrongly been demanded on the amount received by the appellant for providing a construction service to M/s Devi Shakuntala Thakral Charitable Foundation for construction of college building; secondly, whether it is a fact that appellant have provided work contract service to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation and Industrial Rail Warehousing Company after 01 July 2012 and as per the provisions of Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20 June 2012 whether the appellant was only liable to pay 50% of service tax due on the services provided by them to above-mentioned cooperate bodies. 6. With regard to the issue at No. 1 above, we find that the tax invoices issued by the appellant to M/s Devi Shakuntala Thakral Charitable Foundation for construction of college building are all dated before 01 July 2012, we also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.), the activity of the appellant is rightly classifiable under the category of the work contract service as per the provisions of Section 65 (105) (zzzza). The Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20 June 2012 provides that when any individual, or Hindu undivided family or partnership firms provides a work contract service to a registered body cooperate, the service tax payable by the provider of the service will be 50% and the balance 50% of the service tax need to be paid by the recipient of the service. The relevant extract of the notification are reproduced here below :- It is also submitted before your honour that w.e.f. 1 July 2012, as per Sl. No. 9 and condition no. (v) of the Notification No. 30/2012-ST the appellant is liable to pay only 50% of the total service tax liability for the invoices raised to M/s Central Warehousing Corporation and Central Railside Warehousing Company Limited. The relevant extract of Notification No. 30/2012 is reproduced hereunder : (v) provided or agreed to be provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle desig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... motor vehicle designed to carry passengers on abated value to any person who is not engaged in the similar line of business Nil 100% (b) in respect of services provided or agreed to be provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle designed to carry passengers on non abated value to any person who is not engaged in the similar line of business 60% 40% 8. in respect of services provided or agreed to be provided by way of supply of manpower for any purpose 25% 75 % 9. in respect of services provided or agreed to be provided in service portion in execution of works contract 50% 50% 10. in respect of any taxable services provided or agreed to be provided by any person who is located in a non-taxable territory and received by any person located in the taxable territory Nil 100% Explanation-I. - The person who pays or is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
