TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tampura. The demand was raised by SCN dated 27.05.2011 under the category of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" in terms of Section 65 (25b) read with Section 65(105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. The original authority held that the construction undertaken by the respondent cannot be classified as "Commercial or Industrial Construction" and dropping the demand. 2. In the appeal, the Revenue contended that the construction is covered by tax entry "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service", as admittedly, shops, stalls, spaces so constructed were let-out on rent and whole premises is used for trading and commercial activity. The Revenue further contended that the civil construction in Delhi Haats is one of the profitable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s L&T Limited (supra). 4. With the above background, we have heard the ld. AR for the Revenue and the ld Counsel for the respondent-assessee. Both filed written submissions also. We note that though the High Court directed either of the parties to place complete copies of relevant contracts before the Tribunal, copy of one contract with reference to construction of Delhi Haat, Pitampura was placed by the respondent. When the case was heard on 21.11.2017, it was recorded by the Tribunal that the second contract is said to be not readily available. The ld Counsel sought time to place the same. The matter was adjourned to 27.12.2017 and on that day also, no further documents were placed before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rightly to be considered as commercial in nature. On this account, we are not in agreement with the original authority. 5. The LD AR submitted that the respondent shall be held to be liable to service tax under "Works Contract Service" though the demand proceedings were with reference to tax entry "Industrial or Commercial Construction Service". He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Pradyumana Steel Ltd-1996 (82) ELT 441 (SC) held that mentioning of wrong provision of law, when the power to exercise is available even though in different provision, is by itself not sufficient to invalidate the exercise of that power. It is his submission that the Works Contract Service introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2007 covered the taxable activiti....