2020 (5) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocate for Appellant Shri Shiv Pratap Singh, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER ARCHANA WADHWA After rejecting the request for adjournment and after going through the memo of appeal, we note that the service tax stands confirmed against the appellant under three categories of services relatable to construction activities. In their memo of appeal, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....80/10/2004-S.T., dated 17.09.2004. 7.4 If building or civil structure is used for discharge of the sovereign functions of the State, then the construction service is non-taxable since the service is not covered under the definition of commercial or industrial construction. 7.5 The work carried out relates to road which is excluded from the definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction. [....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efinition of Work Contract from 01.06.2007 and the activity does not fall within the scope of construction of residential complex service. 7.9 The work of the Site Grading, Road Work, Drain Work, Sewer Work and Water Supply does not relate or pertain to the construction of residential complex and it could not be changed to service tax under the category of construction of Residential Complex Ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst him. 8.1 The Commissioner, however, without appreciating the various submissions made by the Appellants, has confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 3,92,01,805/- under the Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act alongwith interest under Section 75 of the Act. The Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,92,01,805/- under Section 78 of the Act besides imposing penalty of ....