Works contract before service tax entry not taxable; penalty tied to that demand cannot survive, while repair-service penalty was remanded.

Civil construction treated as a works contract before 1 June 2007 could not be taxed under the then existing service tax entry, so the demand on that count failed and the connected penalty also fell. The maintenance and repair demand was not disputed, but penalty on that service was remanded for limited reconsideration after verification of whether the deposits had been transferred to the residents' association. If penalty is ultimately imposed, it must be under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, not Section 76.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand could be sustained on the footing that the activity was a works contract carried out before 1.6.2007; (ii) whether penalty could be imposed, including in relation to the maintenance and repair service, and on what basis.

Issue (i): Whether the demand could be sustained on the footing that the activity was a works contract carried out before 1.6.2007.

Analysis: The activity was found to be civil construction in the nature of works contract. Since works contract service was not taxable prior to 1.6.2007, the charging entry did not cover such activity for the period in question. The binding Supreme Court ruling on the point was applied, and once the principal demand on this count failed, the connected penalty could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand on works contract was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded on this issue; the related penalty also could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be imposed, including in relation to the maintenance and repair service, and on what basis.

Analysis: The demand for maintenance and repair service was not disputed. As to penalty on that service, the authority was directed to verify the contractual and evidentiary material regarding transfer of deposits to the residents' association. If the amounts had been transferred to the association, penalty would not be leviable; otherwise, an appropriate order was to be passed. If penalty were imposed, it was to be under Section 78 and not under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The maintenance and repair demand was left intact, while the question of penalty on that count was remanded for limited reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the works contract issue, the maintenance and repair demand stood, and the penalty aspect concerning that service was sent back for fresh decision on a limited basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Works contract undertaken before the introduction of the taxable service entry cannot be subjected to service tax, and any penalty tied solely to such non-taxable demand cannot survive; penalty, where otherwise leviable, must conform to the specific statutory provision applicable to the default.

---