Tribunal modifies order, ruling for appellant. Service Tax demand rejected. Renting of Property Services demand set aside.

The tribunal modified the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services was deemed unsustainable due to discrepancies in the show cause notice. Additionally, the demand for Service Tax on works contract services for the period 2005-06 was rejected based on legal precedent. The demand under Renting of Immovable Property Services was set aside due to lack of evidence of intent to evade payment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was modified in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the classification of services under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services, the applicability of Service Tax on works contract services, and the demand under Renting of Immovable Property Services.

Commercial or Industrial Construction Services:
The impugned order confirmed a demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services, different from what was proposed in the show cause notice. The appellant argued that the classification cannot be changed from what was proposed in the notice. The tribunal agreed, stating that the impugned order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. Additionally, the tribunal noted that even if the service provided fell under commercial or industrial construction, it was a works contract service, which was taxable only from 01.06.2007 onwards as per legal precedent.

Works Contract Services and Service Tax Applicability:
The appellant contended that the service provided was akin to works contract service, which became taxable from 01.06.2007. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE Vs. L & T Ltd., emphasizing that works contract services were not subject to service tax before the specified date. Consequently, the demand for Service Tax for the period 2005-06 was deemed unsustainable by the tribunal.

Renting of Immovable Property Services:
Regarding the demand under Renting of Immovable Property Services, the appellant argued that there was no intention to evade payment as the demand was raised during an audit. The tribunal acknowledged the ambiguity surrounding the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property and noted that the matter was under scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Due to the absence of any evidence of suppression, fraud, or collusion, the demand under this service was set aside on the grounds of limitation.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and perusing the records, the tribunal modified the impugned order. It held that the demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services was unsustainable due to the discrepancy between the show cause notice and the order. The tribunal also ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the demand for Renting of Immovable Property Services, setting it aside based on the lack of intent to evade payment. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was modified accordingly.

---