TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t they have provided the services of laying of pipeline for M/s. Jaipur Development Authority and M/s. Public Health Engineering for transportation of water by them. 2. It is seen that during adjudication, the appellant took a categorical stand that laying of pipeline etc. for these 2 customers is not for commercial purpose and as such cannot be taxed in their hands. For the above proposition, they placed reliance on the Tribunal decision in the case of Dinesh Chandra Aggarwal Intracon P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2011 (21) STR 41 (Tri.- Admd.). It stands held in the said decision that pipeline laying undertaken for Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board is not taxable, inasmuch as, the same is not for commercial activities by the Board.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e services which at large fall under "erection commissioning and installation service‟ are taxable. Further in terms of the provisions of works contract service when these services are provided alongwith goods and material and sales tax is paid/payable on such goods which are used for providing service, then the same activity would fall under the „works contract service.‟ The noticee has not provided complete details regarding payment of sales tax in all the cases and in absence of complete detail, correct classification of service, its taxability and exact quantification of service tax liability cannot be done. The notice have also not provided period wise amount received in respect of individual work orders therefore the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that in any case and in any view of the matter, the activity of the assessee was to be taxed, if at all under the category of works contract. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE & Cus, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.) the works contract service was not taxable prior to 01.06.2007. The period involved in the present appeal is from 2004 -05 to 2008- 09. For the period subsequent to 01.06.2007, there is no proposal in the show cause notice to confirm the demand under works contract and as such the impugned orders would not be sustainable. He also assailed the impugned order on the point of limitation. 6. Opposing the above arguments, ld. A.R. Shri Vivek Pandey very ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessees contention that the adjudicating authority in the above reproduced paragraph has discussed various categories of services under which the appellants activities would fall. In spite of arriving at a conclusion that the same would fall under different categories, he has ultimately confirmed demand under the construction services. The said course of action adopted by the adjudicating authority is not in accordance with the principles of justifiable adjudication. 9. Otherwise also we note that as the appellant was working under the works contract, no tax liability would arise against him in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) till the period 01.06.2007. For the post period, there is....