9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d clearly in the impugned Order-In-Original and therefore, we are of the view that original Adjudicating Authority need to decide the matter afresh keeping in mind the decision of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Skyway Construction [ 2024 (6) TMI 1332 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] . - HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate and Shri Amber Kumrawat, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER C. L. MAHAR The brief facts of the matter are that appellants are engaged in providing the services under the category of Work Contract Service, Commercial or Industrial Construction Service etc. The appellants are registered the Service Tax Department as required under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is a matter of record that during the period from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. The appellant had carried out work as sub-contractor of Shree Hindustan fabricators and others who were awarded various contracts for execution of work of laying of the pipeline for water supply and drainage system and other civic amenities for Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC), Gujarat W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rks Contract Service can be sustained. For this argument they have relied on the decision of REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.(supra) and on the decision in the case of CONCEPT MOTORS PVT. LTD. (supra). In the case of CONCEPT MOTORS PVT. LTD. (supra) tribunal has observed as follows : As regard the demand of service tax on referral fees received by the appellant from HDFC Chubb insurance company, we find that the service is in connection with business of insurance of HDFC Chubb. In terms of Sub Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994, the service provided by the appellant falls under definition of Insurance Auxiliary Services whereas the Revenue has raised the demand under wrong head. On this ground the demand of service tax under Business Auxiliary Services does not sustain. As per our above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. 5.1 The next argument of the appellant is that the service provided by them is not covered under ECIS as held by tribunal in case of INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. (supra) affirmed by the Hon ble High Court of Madras. In Para 8, 8.1 8.2 of the decision of tribunal in case of INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. following has been observed: 8. We have con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry only from 10-9-04, from 16-6-05 onwards meaning of erection, commissioning or installation [Section 65(39a)] was enlarged to include installation of various devices and equipments. An entry plumbing, drain laying, or other installation for transport of fluids was introduced under sub-section (ii)(b). The impugned order found that the service involved was specifically covered from 16-6-05 under the same head by the entry plumbing, drain laying, or other installation for transport of fluids . We are inclined to agree with the appellants that this entry covers such facility provided in a building as it appears in the company of air-conditioning system, lifts, electronic devices including wiring etc. which are installed in a building. The Commissioner found that plant represented a fixed investment for carrying out certain institutional activity for business . The ld. Consultant for the department has tried to defend the interpretation of the Commissioner of the expression plant. The Commissioner s interpretation of a plant would cover a long distance pipeline. We find it difficult to accept the above reading of the word plant in the context it is used. It is an inappropriate sele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le services qua the exclusionary clause definition of CICS, in Section 65(25b) of the Act. 11. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee was entrusted with the task of laying a long distance pipeline to enable the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board to supply water. It was an activity in public interest, to take care of the civic amenities liable to be provided by the State. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding in favour of the assessee. Hence, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. 5.3 In view of categorical findings of Larger Bench as well as Hon ble High Court of Madras cited above we respectfully hold that the activities under taken by the appellant cannot be classified under ECIS. 5.4. The other arguments of revenue regarding classification of services under Works Contract Service or Commercial or Industrial Construction Service become irrelevant as no demand under the said head has been raised by revenue. No charge for classification of the serviced provided by the appellant under the head of Works Contract or Commercial or Industrial Construction Service has been made against the appellant. In these circumstances we are unable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
