TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Show Cause Notice raised the demand for service tax for the period 2006-2007 to 2008-2009.The respondent is a proprietorship concerned and are registered with the Service Tax Department for providing taxable service in respect of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services" (CIC) falling under Section 65(105)(zzq) and "Works Contract Services" (WCS) falling under Section 65(105)(zzzza). The respondent was awarded two contracts for Construction and Development of Dilli Haat, at Pitampura and INA through the tendering process initiated on 20.03.2006 by the "Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation" (DTTDC). During the course of the audit of the respondent in October, 2010 by the officers of Service Tax Commissionerate Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the appellant as well as Sh. Atul Kr. Gupta and Sh. Varun Gaba, ld. Advocate for the respondent. 3. The ld. DR contended that the service tax demand was dropped erroneously and highlighted the following grounds of Revenue of the appeal. The respondent has undertaken the construction activity of Dilli Haat, which is evidentially used for commerce. Even though DTTDC proposed to construct a Dilli Haat for promotion of Tourism and Cultural activities of various states, the actual operation can be inferred from Dilli Haat Operation and Management Rule 2006, which prescribed the rates for renting of commercial space for brand promotion. From these, it can be seen that Dilli Haat is a commercial venture, which has been earning profits for DT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amounting to Rs. 93,01,154/- was also demanded along with interest and penalties. However, the ld. Commissioner, vide the impugned order dropped the proposal entirely by taking the view that the activity was not covered under CIC since the building constructed is not intended primarily for Commerce and Industry. Revenue on the other hand has pleaded that the building constructed is being let out in the form of various stalls for brand promotion and hence, the constructing activity is to be covered under CIC and liable to payment of Service Tax. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent, at the time of arguments has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larson & Toubro Ltd. We have gone through the above dec....