TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een issued in pursuance of Show Cause Notice dated 13.4.2011 and 21.10.2011 involving service tax amounting to Rs. 4,29,65,586/- (2,93,19,712 + 1,36,45,874). The issue involved in this appeal is regarding confirmation of demand of service tax on construction of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) and laying down of sewage pipelines for various customers including government bodies under the category of commercial or industrial construction service (CICS). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in construction of STP, ETP and laying down of sewage pipelines for various customers including government bodies and organisation, for which they are duly registered with the Department and discha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for commercial or industrial purposes and hence in terms of CBEC Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.9.2004 they are not required to pay service tax. In addition to that, it is submission of the learned Advocate that these contracts, against which the services have been provided, are composite contracts and hence no service tax is leviable prior to 1.6.2007 following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Larsen & Toubro Limited - 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST. The nature of contract is 'work contract', which has become liable to service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007. It is also stated that confirmation of demand in this case is not sustainable under CICS from the period 1.6.2007 as well in view of the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jal Nigam is non-taxable as has been held in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the appeal record. 6. The issue in this case is regarding the demand of service tax on the activities undertaken by the appellant which has been reproduced in the above-mentioned paragraph. Perusal of the contracts in this case indicate that most of these are not for the commercial or industrial activities and, therefore, the same is not liable for service tax under the Finance Act. The appellant has submitted certificate from agencies involved in execution of these projects such as, Delhi Jal Board, Akashardham, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, U.P. Jal Nigam Board. These ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icating authority had perused the contracts on which the demand was raised in the show cause notice and rendered a clear finding, including on the allegation of abatement availed in Notification No. 15/2004-S.T., dated 10th September, 2004 and Notification No. 01/2006, dated 1st March, 2006; the allowance of abatement is a clear demonstration of ascertainment that supply of goods did form a part of the contract. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the said contracts in dispute to be composite contracts for supply of both goods and services. 8. We note that the findings of the adjudicating authority do accept that supply of goods were involved in the contracts and that he was merely sceptical that VAT liability had been di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the non-service elements from the composite works contracts has been made by any of the aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of properly in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract.' 10. In view of this specific decision and the admitted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007. 11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contra....