TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with materials (composite contract), whether the service is classifiable under 'works contract service' or 'commercial or industrial construction service'. The second issue is whether the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking having one of their office at Chantidih, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and are engaged in providing construction services to National Thermal Power Corporation Limited ("NTPC" for short), at Sipat, Bilaspur. The respondent assessee obtained registration on 10 April, 2012. It appeared to Revenue that the respondent assessee failed to furnish the ST-3 returns and avoided payment of service tax. In compliance to queries by the Range S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicable head of taxation as the appellant have admittedly undertaken composite service including supply of materials. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) took notice of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to composite contracts in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Others - 2015 (8) TMI 749 being judgement dated 20 August, 2015 and also took notice of the two earlier show cause notices issued on the respondent - assessee which were subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal and vide Final Order No. ST/A/53646-53647/2016-CU(DB) dated 19 September, 2016, it was held that - the demand in respect of earlier show cause notice dated 26 May, 2009 and 19 April, 2012, up to the perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o and to pass a fresh order. Revenue preferred the present appeal as regards the issue of limitation and also on the ground that they have filed appeal before the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 19 September, 2016 before Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. The respondent assessee have filed cross objections:- The adjudicating authority have given its finding in the order-in-original dated 28 May, 2015, which are not disputed by Revenue, as follows: (a) In para 8.4 of order-in-original - NTPC have awarded composite contract for construction of offsite Area; (b) In para 8.11 of order-in-original - I find that both contracts are composite contracts; (c) In para 8.7 of order-in-original - Thus, I find, the servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch were invoked were significantly different (j) In para 13.8 of order-in-original - As the noticee have not included the 'cost of free supplied materials' in the cost/value of service, therefore, the claim of noticee that they may be granted abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST is not acceptable and accordingly, their request is disallowed; (k) In para 15.4 of order-in-original - Hence the extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is rightly and legally invocable in the instant case. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent assessee urges that the order of remand by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad as firstly the issue of classification is no longe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed on whatever grounds. There is no doubt about the above proposition. The appellate authority was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the cross objection as infructuous" . 9. Having considered the rival contentions, we hold that under the admitted facts and circumstances in this appeal, the service rendered by the appellant is taxable only and the category of works contract service in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro (supra). Secondly, we hold that the work relating to road construction, even in the premises of NTPC, which may be termed as private road is exempt service as per the definition of works contract service which specifically exempts 'road service'. There is no distinction made out by....