2017 (8) TMI 1116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of PSC Pipes, MS Pipe, MS End Pipe & RCC Septic Tank, etc. They were also registered for Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants were also engaged in supplying, laying and jointing of pre-stressed concrete pipes, construction of concrete cradle bedding for said pipes and other related works as a contractor for U.P. Jal Nigam and have received payments against the services provided to U.P. Jal Nigam. It appeared to Revenue that the said activity was provision of service under the Category of "Work Contract Service" within the meaning of Service Tax as defined under Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the appellants were issued with a Show Cause No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Industrial purpose and that U.P. Jal Nigam was wholly owned Corporation of State Government of Uttar Pradesh. They further stated that the basic objective of creating U.P. Jal Nigam was for development and regulation of water supply and sewerage services. They have further stated in their said reply that the construction of said pipeline was for Non-commercial and Non-industrial purpose and that construction of pipeline is specifically covered under "Work Contract Service" if the same is for the purpose of Commercial or Industrial nature and since the work undertaken by them for U.P. Jal Nigam was not either for Commercial or for Industrial purpose the activity undertaken by them was not covered by the said definition of "Work Contract Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d their submissions and finding by the Original Authority. He has contended that the contention in the Show Cause Notice that money will be charged from the persons who are providing (sic) drinking water under the projects wherein such pipelines have been laid is on the basis of presumption by Revenue and no evidence has been brought on record to establish as to how much money is charged and for what purpose and from whom. He has further contended that the finding of the Original Authority in Para 10.1.13 stated that in the present case Government Agencies were collecting the development cost from the customers/ users is totally presumptive in nature and it is not based on any evidence submitted before the Original Authority either by Reven....