TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s cement and steel was to be supplied by M/s City Centre Mall Pvt. Ltd. Due to certain disputes, the contract was terminated on 31.5.2007 and separate invoice was raised for works completed prior to 31.5.2007. Thereafter, when M/s City Centre Mall Pvt. Ltd. invited bids again for completing the construction of the mall, the appellant participated in the tender process and were again awarded the contract. Based on opinion from consultants, they started paying Service Tax under Works contract Service for which registration was obtained on 26.9.2007. They started paying tax 2.06% under the Works Contract Composition Scheme. Audit of the appellant resulted in issue of show-cause notices to them for the period June'07 to March'08 (show-cause notice issued on 22.4.2009), April'08 to Sept'08 (show-cause notice issued on 7.9.2009), June'07 to March'08 (show-cause notice issued on 22.4.2009) for the reason that the appellants were not entitled to change the classification from 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' to 'Works Contract Service' for the same work undertaken by them i.e. to construct the City Centre Mall. Another allegation in the show-c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the introduction of Works Contract Service as well as after the introduction of Works Contract Service. In their case, he stated that work was started under a fresh contract executed on 1.6.2007 for which their activity was classifiable under Works Contract Service. He further prayed that as they had paid Service Tax under Composition Scheme, by this very act they had satisfied the condition of exercising of option prior to payment of Service Tax in terms of Rule 3 of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007. The learned Counsel relied on the case of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2012 (27) STR 406 (Tri-Del). 4.3 On the issue of limitation, the learned Counsel contended that the show-cause notice for the period June, 07 to March, 08 is time barred because they had obtained registration under Works Contract Service and were paying duty correctly under the Composition Scheme. Therefore, according to him, no penalty is warranted under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. He contended that the change of contract from old contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to show that a fresh contract was executed w.e.f. 5.6.2007. He showed the Minutes of the Board's Meeting dated 3.7.2007 stating the Management Committee issued the notice to the appellant on 14.5.2007 under clause (28) of the Agreement entered into 18.12.2006, for termination of the contract as the civil construction work was behind schedule and backlog was affecting further work. Board's minutes also stated that contract was terminated on 31.5.2007, the Construction Management Committee held the meeting on 1.6.2007 at Site Office at City Centre Mall. The City Centre Mall Pvt. Ltd. issued fresh tender and invited bids from reputed civil contractors for the balance civil work of City Centre Mall, on 12.5.2007. The tenders were sent to 8 persons, out of which 4 presented their bids. Being one of the lowest bidders and also because the existing infrastructure was already mobilized by the appellant, in a meeting of the Construction Management Committee on 1.6.2007, it was decided to again award the contract to the appellant. 6.2 The appellant also showed the detailed tender document/bids submitted by the 4 parties, who submitted bids for the renewal of work and also showed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hichever I higher As decided by Project Manager 12 Minimum Billing 20 lacs 15 lacs 13 Payment tender Documents 25000 Nil From the above table, it is apparent that two contracts are different in factual details. The clauses relating to Retention money and Mobilization advances are very significant clauses in such type of Agreements. In the present case, these two clauses are quite different in the earlier Contract and the later Contract. Further evidence has been provided by the appellant in the form of Ledger abstract showing payment made to the appellant by M/s City Centre Mall Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. The Ledger abstract clearly indicated that the payments are differentiated as under the old contract and the new contract. Therefore, we arrive at the conclusion that the old contract was terminated w.e.f. 31.5.2007 and a fresh contract was executed w.e.f. 5.6.2007. Having stated that the fresh contract from 5.6.2007 is to be considered as a new contract, there cannot be any objection to classify the service rendered in this contract as a Works Contract Service, which was introduced w.e.f. 1.6.2007. 6.3 Having viewed that the appellant have executed the new contract w.e....