TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice Tax, Hyderabad-I Commissionerate. The appeal pertains to various demands apart from penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and applicable interest. 2. When the matter was taken up for e-hearing via video conferencing, Shri G. Natarajan, Learned Advocate, appeared for the assessee-appellant and Shri C. Mallikarjun Reddy, Learned Departmental Representative, appeared for the respondent-Revenue. 3.1.1 The first demand is towards Construction of Complex Service ('CCS' for short) for the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10. Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the demand is raised and confirmed in respect of residential apartments constructed by the appellant, in pursuance of a tripartite agreement entered into be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account of the bona fide belief that the work relating to sewerage project, originally awarded by the Government to M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd., was not liable to Service Tax as it was a Government work without involving any commercial benefit and not even for any industrial purpose. 3.3.1 The next demand relates to the Service Tax under Works Contract Service ('WCS' for short) for the period 2009-10. Learned Advocate submits that the above demand was in respect of PranahithaChevella Lift Irrigation Project, which was sub-contracted to the appellant by M/s. IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd. Learned Advocate would submit that the above demand was raised since the exemption provided in the definition of Works Contract un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ex. Madurai v. M/s. Strategic Engineering P. Ltd. [2016 (41) S.T.R. 373 (Mad.)] 3.5 The next demand pertains to the Service Tax which, according to the Learned Advocate, is not disputed as the same was paid along with interest. He would submit that the appellant is contesting only the levy of penalty under Section 78 on the ground of bona fides. 3.6 Learned Advocate thus pleads for deletion/setting aside of the demands as well as penalty confirmed in the impugned order. 4.1 Per contra, Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, while relying on the reasons recorded in the impugned Order-in-Original, also reiterated the findings of the lower authority. He would also inter alia submit that primarily the construction activit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... work out of the purview of the exclusion clause under Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994 since the residential complex was never intended for the personal use of the appellant. But the law requires that such complex shall not be constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, which according to us stands satisfied here since the Revenue has nowhere flagged any objections on the satisfaction of this requirement of law. 6.2 In view of the above clear facts, the case-laws relied upon by the appellant are squarely applicable which we have to follow. Consequently, the demand cannot sustain. 6.3 On the demand under CCS, the appellant has again relied on the decision in the case of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... . . . (v) From the guidance provided by the above precedents and in view of the fact that in the commercial world and practice, in legal and technical Dictionaries, "EPC contracts" are synonymously known and referred to as "turnkey contracts" as well, we conclude that in clause (e) under Explanation (ii) of the definition of WCS, turnkey projects and EPC projects are employed to signify similar, not dissimilar transactions, to indicate contracts in which a builder agrees to execute the whole of the enterprise awarded to him and if the agreement so provides from the stage of design and planning till execution and completion of the whole work entrusted; and undertakes wide variety of other responsibilities w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order-in-Original passed by the Assessing Authority and we find that there is no such finding against the assessee of it being guilty of wilfully not paying tax by reason of any of the clauses provided in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 78(1) of the Act. Furthermore, as per first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 78 of the Act, no penalty shall be imposable for any failure referred to in the said Provision viz., for failure to pay service tax, for contravention of Rules and Provisions of the Act, or for suppression of facts etc., if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. 12. From the facts available on record, it is noticed that entire facts were available on record and on this there is no dispute; nor i....