9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged service tax on the bills/invoices against those services provided. M/s Navnirman Constructions Company, being one of the such contractor was observed to have charged Rs. 68 lakhs during the disputed period from M/s VSK Infrastructure, without charging any service tax. 3. The records of the appellant were also called. On the scrutiny thereof, it was observed that the appellant has neither paid the service tax nor had filed ST-3 returns. However, appellant had prepared a reconciliation chart for the period 2010-2011 to 2013- 2014 showing the exempted amount but without any documentary evidence. Following discrepancies were also noticed from comparison of taxable amount in ST-3 returns with that of balance sheet: (i) Short payment of service tax of an amount of Rs. 5,82,06,760/-. (ii) For the period 2012-2013, the appellant had availed 60% abatement on works contract services. Hence, was not entitled to avail and utilized Cenvat credit of Rs. 6,180/-. (iii) On scrutiny of details of project this were not found in relation with the balance sheet and profit and loss account; (iv) The registration for service tax was taken on 09.02.2012 however the construction services were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-11 to 2011-12 as was raised in show cause notice dated 15.10.2015. Also erred in consequently not imposing commensurate penalty under Section 78 of the Act. The adjudicating authority erred in dropping the demand in respect of Hire charges income shown in balance sheet amounting to Rs. 1,00,55,536/- for the period 2010-11 to 2011-12 as was raised vide show cause notice dated 15.10.2015 and consequently not imposing commensurate penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 8. The original adjudicating authority also observed that M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (M/s PGCIL), is the Government of India Enterprises and the activities carried out by them are not covered under commercial or industrial activities. It is submitted that on the contrary, M/s PGCIL though is established by Government but it is a profit making body and indulges in commercial activities too. Hence those findings are also been wrongly arrived at by the adjudicating authority. Similarly the services provided by the appellant to Municipal Corporation, Delhi are also wrongly concluded to be such activities of MCD which are not covered under commercial or industrial activities. The dropping of demand on those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngaged in setting transmission for electricity and the respondent has provided services of site preparation for setting up of transmission tower/sub-station i.e. for setting up of the transmission infrastructure for transmission of electricity. Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 exempts the taxable service provided to any person by any other person for transmission of electricity from whole of service tax leviable thereupon in terms of Section 66 of Finance Act. Similarly, the services rendered to MCD was in the nature of constructing parkings which was also not in the nature of the commercial or industrial activity. No infirmity is found in the order. Finally relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal reported as 2023 (385) ELT 152 (Tri.-Del.) and in the matter of Kedar Constructions Vs. CCE, Kohlapur reported as 2015 (37) STR 631 (Tri.-Mumbai), the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 11. Having heard both the sides at length perusing the entire record we observe and hold as follows: "The impugned order in original has adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or industry. In the present case, respondent has provided services to M/s PGCIL a public sector undertaking which admittedly is engaged in setting up of transmission lines for transmission of electricity and the respondent has provided the infrastructure for the same. Any service provided in relation to transmission of electricity stands exempted from whole of the service tax liability in terms of Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010. This notification has been relied upon by the original adjudicating authority while dropping the demand vis-à-vis the demand of service tax vis-à-vis projects executed for M/s PGCIL. There is no evidence produced by the department to prove that the service provided by appellant is not for electricity transmission infrastructure. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order to that extent. 14. The demand of hire charges on account of giving DG sets, motor graders, hydraulic, excavator etc. has been dropped holding that the amount on account of sale of goods is not taxable under service tax and, therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay service tax on account of amount booked for sale of goods. The amount was proposed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " 16. Giving goods on Hire with effective control and possession thereof thus stands ousted from the scope of service tax leviability. Since there is no evidence produced by the department on record showing that right to possession and effective control of the equipments given on hire was retained by the respondent - assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge where the demand on hire charges has been dropped. 17. Finally coming to the demand dropped with respect to the charges received for constructing parking for MCD, the adjudicating authority has held that the main contractor of MCD was M/s VSK Infrastructure and the respondent - assessee was the sub- contractor. Since the main contractor was exempted from paying any service tax, the sub-contractor cannot be held liable to tax for the same project of renting works contract services. However, we are not in agreement with those findings, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi Vs. M/s. Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd reported as 2020 (33) GSTL 116 (Tri. LB), has while referring the earlier decision in Max Tech. Oil & Gas Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
