2014 (8) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....athy, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Uma Shankar Goud, DC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per Justice G. Raghuram : Heard Shri V. Sridharan, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Shri Uma Shankar Goud, Ld. Deputy Commissioner (AR) for Revenue. 2. The impugned adjudication order dated 07.05.2012, passed by C.C.E.&S.T., Hyderabad-III Commissionerate confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 1,10,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner fall. Revenue contends and the adjudicating authority concluded that the works are turnkey projects including (EPC) projects coming within the purview of sub-clause (e). According to the petitioner, the works are more properly classifiable within construction of pipe line primarily for the purpose of commerce or industry, enumerated in sub-clause (b). On this suggested classificati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity that these are turnkey projects, is impeccable. 4. Substantially similarly nature of works came up for consideration in Stay Application No.309/2012 in ST Appeal No.501/2012 and we prima facie were of the view that works were for pipe-line construction since the pipe-line construction was for provision of drinking water supply and irrigation, the works were outside the ambit of the taxable....