TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ata, whereby he has confirmed the demand of service tax under the category of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services" for the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is engaged in providing construction services and is also registered with the jurisdictional service tax authorities for payment of service tax. During the period in dispute, the Appellant has undertaken construction of various infrastructural related projects like Rehabilitation, National Games, Village projects, Sports Complex Construction, Construction of Car Parking etc. pursuant to Works Contract awarded by NBCC, L & T, New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), PWD and other authorities. The detail of said construc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n but under 'Works Contract service'. He submitted that the Ld. Commissioner has extended the benefit of abatement at the rate of 67% to arrive at the value of taxable services in terms of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 by considering the project to be inclusive of supply of goods for use in the construction project. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)] to submit that works contract services cannot be taxed under Commercial Construction Service. He also relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Salem [2017 (50) S.T.R. 147 (Tri-Chennai)] wherein it has been held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....59 (Tri.-Bang.)] • Ramalingam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of S.T. Salem , CESTAT, Chennai vide F.O. No. 41891- 41896 dated 18.04.2018 5.2 He further submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure dated 21.02.2006 had considered the nature and objective of Centrally Sponsored Schemes of the Government. The Hon'ble Court observed that the objective is to create and maintain a fund for the development of infrastructural assets on a continuing basis and there is no profit motive as the entire fund entrusted and the interest accrued therefrom has to be applied for the purpose of welfare of the nation/States. The said funds have to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioning and installation', 'construction of building for commerce and industry', 'construction of residential complex' and 'turnkey projects', under Section 65(105)(zzzza) are liable to tax only with effect from 1st June, 2007. It is also contended that, at the adjudication stage, they had taken the plea that they being providers of 'works contract service' were not liable to tax as providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service'. This plea was not accepted by the adjudicating authority who proceeded to confirm the demand. Their further contention is that even though they are liable to tax with effect from 1st June, 2007 the show cause notice had not invoked the taxable entry rendering the determination of tax liability to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, fails before the altar of law'. was relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative to reiterate that the adjudicating authority had no means of ascertaining that these were composite contracts. 7. Having heard both sides on this limited issue, we are of the opinion that the resolution of this dispute lies within the narrow compass of taxability as 'works contract service'. We note the contention of learned Counsel that the adjudicating 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 al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act. Further, under Section 67, as has been pointed out above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove 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....