TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eight crore twenty five lakhs fifty six thousand one hundred and eighty only) along with applicable interest; (ii) Penalty at the rate of 2 per cent per month on the above amount from the due date till the date of payment under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 ('the Act'); (iii) Penalty of Rs. 29,00,00,000 (Rupees twenty nine crores only) under section 78 of the Act; and, (iv) Penalty of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) under section 77 of the Act. 2. Facts of the case are that during the period September, 2006 to April, 2008, L & T, Hyderabad (ECC Division) rendered Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and constructed an Onshore Terminal ('OT' for short), for storage and processing of natural gas, for M/s. Reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luded from the purview of CICS. The subject project was for construction of an Onshore Terminal for the purpose of receiving, processing/purification and distribution of natural gas extracted from the Godavari Basin. The activity of the appellants at Kakinada was covered by the Regional Office of L & T at Hyderabad, which had obtained service tax registration under Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. Therefore, though the impugned activity was undertaken at Kakinada, L & T filed ST-3 returns at Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. There was no separate registration for the appellants at Kakinada as the accounts were maintained at their Regional Office at Hyderabad. This was in accordance with rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which provided as follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormally constructed or provided only by the Government or Municipal Corporation and were maintained for public utility and for public purposes. Therefore, transport terminal could only mean a bus terminal which was a public utility. The gas processing plant constructed by L & T could not be considered as gas transport terminal excluded from taxable activity under CICS. The OT was an industrial plant, a refinery with various processing facilities, where impure gas received was subjected to complex processes. Principle of "ejusdem generis" applied to understand the scope of transport terminal. Exclusion was provided to certain specified utilities viz., roads, airport, railways, transport terminal, bridges, tunnels and dams. These were f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut jurisdiction. Commissioners of Central Excise had jurisdiction to implement provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 in their respective jurisdictions specified in Notification No. 14/2002-CE (NT). Therefore, Commissioner, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate did not have jurisdiction to demand tax on the impugned services rendered in Kakinada which fell outside the jurisdiction of Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. 5. We have heard both sides. We find that the Onshore Terminal in question receives impure natural gas extracted from the earth beneath the sea, where it is processed and stored for distribution. CICS does not apply to work relating to certain specified utilities viz., roads, airport, railways, transport terminal, bridges, tunnels and dams ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in, commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include such services provided in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams;" Section 65(105)(zzq) defines the taxable service in relation to "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" as under : "to any person, by a commercial concern, in relation to commercial or industrial service" 5.2 We find that the excluded items namely infrastructure facilities constructed and maintained by the national, State or local Government are 'public goods'. The Onshore Terminal in question constructed for storage and purification of natural gas extracted by Reliance Industries Ltd. does not appear to be 'transport termi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable to service tax. One of the sub-contractors of L & T who had obtained legal opinion on the subject had intimated the appellant that service tax was applicable on construction of OTA letter dated 21-2-2007 of the Superintendent or the reply of the appellant does not reflect information on the impugned activity. However, Shri K. Udaya Bhaskar of L&T had replied to a question during investigation into the allegations that the appellants' contract with RIL was produced before the internal audit party of the department in August 2007 and to the AG's party in October, 2007. Show-cause notice was issued in September 2008. However, the adjudicating authority held that the assessee had not disclosed the details as claimed. Therefore, the plea o....