Non-commercial educational construction escapes works contract tax; interpretational dispute defeats extended limitation, while capital goods credit penalty fails.

Construction of buildings for educational institutions used solely for education and not for profit is treated as non-commercial and falls outside taxable works contract service, with the departmental circular on this point operating against taxability. The extended period of limitation is not justified where the issue is interpretational and the department already had the relevant records, without positive suppression or intent to evade. On capital goods credit, removal of the requirement that goods be received in the registered premises did not save the disputed credit for the relevant period, so the credit demand and interest were sustained. Penalty was not sustainable in the circumstances and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether construction services provided for educational institutions that are used solely for education and not for profit are liable to service tax under works contract service; and whether the extended period could be invoked. (ii) Whether credit on capital goods was admissible when the goods were not received in the registered premises, and whether penalty could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether construction services provided for educational institutions that are used solely for education and not for profit are liable to service tax under works contract service; and whether the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The definition of works contract service covers construction of a building or civil structure primarily for commerce or industry. The Board's Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004 clarified that constructions for institutions established solely for educational, charitable, religious, health or philanthropic purposes and not for profit are non-commercial in nature and are not taxable. The construction activity for educational institutions was found to be for educational use, and the department's attempt to treat the institutions as commercial merely because fees were collected was rejected. The issue was treated as interpretational, the demand was based on records already available with the department, and no positive suppression with intent to evade was established.

Conclusion: The demand of service tax on construction of educational institutions was not sustainable and the invocation of the extended period was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether credit on capital goods was admissible when the goods were not received in the registered premises, and whether penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The demand relating to credit on capital goods was not contested on merits. The Tribunal noted the amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 whereby the requirement of receipt in the registered premises was removed, but held that the credit demand and related interest would survive for the disputed period. In view of the nature of the amendment and the circumstances, the penalty was held not sustainable.

Conclusion: The credit demand and interest were sustained, but the penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the tax demand relating to construction of educational institutions and on penalty, but failed on the capital goods credit demand and interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Construction of buildings for educational institutions used solely for educational, non-profit purposes does not amount to taxable commercial construction under works contract service, and a departmental circular clarifying this position is binding on the department.

---