2011 (3) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-Original No. 04/2010/-S.T., dated 25-1-2010. (i)      Service Tax of Rs. 1,36,48,226/- (ii)    Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess of Rs. 2,74,440/-. (iii)   Applicable interest on the above demands; (iv)   Penalty of Rs. 1,39,22,666/- under Section 78 (v)     Penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 (vi)   Penalty @ Rs. 200/- per day or @ 2% of the arrears of tax per month whichever is higher from the due date till the date of payment of the tax demanded subject to the penalty not exceeding Rs. 1,39,22,666/-. 2. The facts of the case are that GTCC had carried out the following items of work : I.  ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the port being a transport terminal was excluded under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,11,688/- under Commercial or Industrial Construction service. III.     "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" provided to M/s. Tata Projects : The Commissioner confirmed demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1,23,524/- found liable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service rendered to M/s. Tata Projects during the period 10-9-2004 to 31-12-2004. He rejected the claim of the assessee that the service being subjected to assessment under the sales tax could not be subjected to Service Tax prior to 1-6-2007. IV.    "Commercial or In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... brought under the net of Service Tax. In the judgment cited, the Hon'ble High Court had rejected the appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Tribunal in Final Order No. 1068/2006 dated 15-6-2006 in the case of Turbotech Precision Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-III [2006 (3) S.T.R. 765 (Tri.-Bangalore)]. The Tribunal had vacated an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) demanding Service Tax under the category "Consulting Engineer" service for activities undertaken prior to 1-6-2007 which had been classified under Works Contract w.e.f. 1-6-2007. The Hon'ble High Court held that the activity undertaken was not Consulting Engineer service and fell under the definition of Works Contract. The Revenue had no power to call upon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial or industrial construction services' thereafter upto 31-3-2006. The Tribunal was not impressed with the assessee's attempt to escape tax liability for the period upto 31-3-2006 on the strength of doctrine, which was introduced on 1-6-2007 with prospective effect. 4.1 The learned JCDR also submitted that the Tribunal, in the case of Jaihind Projects Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad [2010 (18) S.T.R. 650 (Tri.- Ahmd.)], held that non-monetary consideration in the form of pipes received from the clients was liable to be included and the benefit of Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. liable to be denied when such supplies were received from the clients. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the Commissioner has....