9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service. The appellants have classified their service under the Works Contract Service and has paid service tax. The work orders which have been executed by the appellant for Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation have been perused by us and we find that the work orders involved supply of pipes for water supply, drainage as well as laying the same as per the engineering drawings. Thus, it is accepted that that the activity undertaken by the appellant involves both supply of material as well as service - It has also been claimed by the learned advocate that they have paid VAT/service tax on the goods supplied by them to M/s. GIDC. In view of the above facts, it is convincing that the activity undertaken by the appellant is properl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention of the department that the activity undertaken by the appellant i.e. of laying down of the pipes for water supply, drainage or affluent pipeline for the GIDC falls under the category of the Commercial and Industrial Construction service as defined under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994. It has also been contended by the department that the appellant had availed the abatement under Notification No.1/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 without fulfilling the necessary conditions for availing the benefit of such notification for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 and thereby the appellants have failed to pay service tax properly to the Government exchequer which resulted in short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 3,27,05,009/-. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Works Contract Service. It has further been added by the learned advocate that as per ST-3 returns filed by them for these contracts, they have disclosed the entire income earned from GIDC, was also reporting payment of service tax on such income under the Works Contract Service at the rate applicable for such service at the relevant time. 2.2 It has further been submitted by learned advocate that the issue of laying pipes for drainage, water supply etc. falling under the category of Works Contract Service has been settled by the larger bench in the case of M/s LANCO INFRATECH LIMITED reported at 2015 (38) STR 709. It has been the contention of the learned advocate that the Hon ble Larger Bench of the CESTAT has categorically held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce tax on the work undertaken by t hem for a Government agency namely Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. 2.3 It has further been argued that since they have been regularly filing service tax returns under the Works contract Service at the same time as stated in the above para, they have been informing the department regarding the nature of activity undertaken by them and issue of service tax with the department, the extended time proviso under Section 73 cannot be invoked. 2.4 The learned Advocated has cited case law of M/s. JYOTI BUILDTECH (P) LTD reported under 2017 (3) GSTL 116 (Tri. Allahabad) and said that extended period of limitation would not be available to the issue being interpretational in nature on the above grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or (b) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part there or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes industry; or of commerce or industry; or (c) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or (d) completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation a restoration of, or similar services, in relation to (b) and (c); or (e) turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation (ii)(b) fall under the definition of works contract service and were also exempted under the classification commercial and industrial construction service prior to 1-6-2007, as explained by the Larger Bench. Further, we find that the issue is wholly interpretational and thus the longer period of limitation is not invocable under the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order, except the demand for normal period, if any, in the case of erection of service station for the gross amount of Rs. 3,25,200/- for labour/charges. The appellant will be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law. In view of the above on merit, we find that the service provided by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
