Tribunal sets aside impugned orders, deems construction activities not under works contract. Remand for quantification.

The Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. It condoned the delay in filing appeals and proceeded with a final decision without pre-deposit. The construction activities for staff quarters, students hostels, and fish tanks were deemed not to fall under works contract service. The matter was remanded to the original authority for quantification of correct amounts and penalties consideration. The appellant was directed to make payments if discrepancies were found. COD applications, stay applications, and appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeals, final decision without pre-deposit, works contract service definition, construction of staff quarters, students hostels, fish tanks for Polytechnic College, remand to original authority for quantification, penalties consideration.

Delay in filing appeals:
The judgment addresses a delay of two days in filing the appeals, which was condoned by the Tribunal due to a satisfactory explanation provided for the delay.

Final decision without pre-deposit:
The Tribunal decided to take up the appeals for a final decision without the requirement of pre-deposit since the issue involved had been considered finally.

Works contract service definition - Construction of staff quarters, students hostels, fish tanks for Polytechnic College:
The appellant argued that the construction activities for staff quarters, students hostels, and fish tanks for a Polytechnic College did not fall under the definition of works contract service. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the constructions were not for commercial or industrial purposes but for personal use, such as renting out to staff or for student use, which did not qualify as works contract service.

Remand to original authority for quantification:
Due to a dispute regarding the payment of service tax and the balance amount attributable to the construction activities, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for quantifying the correct amount and verifying the payments made by the appellant. Any discrepancies found were to be communicated to the appellant for payment.

Penalties consideration:
The Tribunal directed the original authority to consider the appellant's submissions regarding penalties, including non-liability or invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant undertook to make payments in case of any discrepancies found.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals by remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further quantification and verification. The COD applications, stay applications, and appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---