TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and of service tax of Rs. 1,50,000/- under works contract service and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the FA, 1994 and also imposed penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the FA, 1994. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order in so far as the demand and Section 77 and 78 penalty is concerned and waived the penalty under Section 76 of the Act. On appeal before this Tribunal, vide Tribunal's Final Order No. 40386/2013 dated 22.07.2013 dismissed the condonation of delay application and consequently the appeal along with stay application is also dismissed. The appellant preferred CMA before the Honble High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble High Court in their Order dated 24.04.2015 in CMA No. N. 181/2015 & M.P.No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant that the provision of water supply by Municipal Corporation or Panchayat, could not be considered for the purpose of commerce or industry. He further submitted that they have already paid the demand and penalties arising out of the Order in Appeal dated 18.10.10, and submitted copies of TR-6 challans in proof of payment. He further submits that they made the payment under protest. He also submits that their case is covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd. & Others Vs. CCE & ST, Hyderabad reported in 2015-TIOL-768-CESTAT-BANG-LB and prays that the appeal itself may be disposed of. 3. The Ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan, AC, reiterated the findings of the OIO and OIA. 4. Heard bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice relating to construction/laying of pipelines for transmission of water for municipal supply would not amount to erection, commissioning and installation service. The finding of the Cestat in the earlier case was reiterated and applied to Works Contract Service also. The Larger Bench held that the construction of pipelines for rift irrigation, water supply etc., would stand excluded from the levy, even under the works contract service. The Larger Bench also referred to CEBEC Circular No.123/5/2010-TRU, dated 24.5.2010. According to the decision, even after introduction of works contract, the services would fall under sub clause (ii) (b) of the explanation to Works Contract and consequently held that the services of construction of pipel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of law is involved. However, we find that the issue emanated for classification of service immediately after the introduction of the Works Contract Service from 01.06.2007. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the service would come under Works Contract Service, yet he has not spelt out as to why the same service is distinguishable from the erection, commissioning service under which identical services of the same appellant were classified. Even though there maybe transfer of property involved, yet it would be reasonable for the appellants to contend that there is no erection, commissioning or installation of any of the items specified in the Works Contract Service. 8. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the ....