TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Finance Act, 1994 a penalty of Rs. 11,50,25,691/- (Rs. Eleven Crore fifty lakhs twenty five thousand six hundred and ninety one only) upon M/s N.M. Roof Designers Ltd., C-41, Tarun Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. However, benefit of reduced penalty on Service Tax demanded and payable upto 7.4.2011 (penalty of 25% on Service Tax demanded and payable upto 7.4.2011) as per proviso to Section 78 ibid, is available to the noticee subject to the condition that the Service Tax demanded and payable upto 7.4.2011 and the interest payable thereon under Section 75, is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and further subject to the condition that the benefit of reduced penalty (25% of the Service Tax demanded and payable upto 7.4.2011) shall be available if the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order. (iii) I also impose under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 a penalty of Rs. 200/- per day for the period during which such failure continued or at the rate of 2% of the amount of Service Tax due per month (upto 9.5.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n service) 02,55,58,525/- Temple - not taxable under commercial & industrial construction service, but taxed under section 73A 03,26,67,450/- Area Based Exemption - commercial & industrial construction service 03,28,81,459/- commercial & industrial construction service 37,03,70,480/- consulting engineer service 1,58,08,357/- supply of tangible goods service 2,32,800/- 5. The calculation of service tax liability has been arrived at in the following manner: "Commercial & Industrial Construction, Construction of Residential Complex Service and Works Contract Service Period Gross Amt. Value held not liable to service tax Net value on which ST Payable Rate of ST in % (including cesses) ST payable (in Rs.) 2007-08 till 10.05.2007 13718882 0 13718882 12.24 1679191 2007-08 11.5.2007 to 1.3.2008) 213385741 3666840 209718901 12.36 25921256 2008-09 till 23.2.2009) 178934824 13795124 165139700 12.36 20411267 2008-09 24.2.2009 to 31.3.2009) 58373884 682141 57691743 10.3 5942250 2009-10 206058228 2635448 20342278....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which became taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro; (iii) For the period w.e.f. 01.06.2007, the demand as per the show cause notice is under the head 'works contract' service but the Commissioner has confirmed the demand under other heads like CICS or CSS; (iv) Even otherwise, out of the total receipts in relation to construction activities, about Rs. 49.81 crores relates to construction of seven educational institutes. The service would be taxable only if the building is used for commerce or industry. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Chettinadu Constructions versus Commr. of C. Ex. (Service Tax), Madurai [2016 (46) S.T.R. 143 (Tri.-Chennai)] . Paragraph 13.2 of Board Circular dated 17.09.2004 also makes it clear that construction of buildings for institutions established solely for educational purposes would not be taxable under this category, being non- commercial in nature; (v) Likewise, an amount of Rs. 2,88,37,120/- received for construction of a hospital cannot be considered under the category of CICS; (vi) Rule 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of C. Ex., Ghaziabad [2007 (210) E.L.T. 183 (S.C.)] . This decision relates to valuation under Central Excise law and cannot be applied to service tax; (xiii) Bulk of the demand is time-barred, since show cause notice was issued on 11.10.2012 for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012. The appellant did not pay tax in some cases under the bonafide belief that service tax was not leviable on construction activities related to non commercial entities like educational institutions, hospitals, religious bodies etc. Hence, there is no ground for invoking the extended time limit. The bonafides of the appellants is evident from the fact that they had taken registration for service tax in February, 2008, itself and had also paid some service tax as per their own bonafide understanding of the matter and had shown the remaining tax payable in their Balance Sheets; and (xiv) There is no ground for imposing any penalty also. In any case, this is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act to waive all penalties. 8. Dr. Radhe Tallo, learned authorised representative appearing for the department, however, supported the order passed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7-TIOL-3230-CESTAT MUM], the Tribunal observed as under:- "8. For period commencing on 1/06/2007, the composite services would be liable for classification under Works Contract Service only. But we note that Show Cause Notice has proposed the demand for service tax under the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction Service as well as Repair and Maintenance Service. Hence we are of the view that the confirmation of demand under the category of WCS will not be proper particularly in view of the decision of the Tribunal in case of Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar (supra) wherein Tribunal has taken the view that demand for Service Tax is to be set aside if the Show Cause Notice proposed a classification different from WCS for construction activity." 15. A Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/s Gurjar Construction as Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II [2019 (5) TMI 717 - CESTAT, New Delhi] also examined such a position and observed that a demand made under a particular category cannot be sustained under a different category. 16. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the Commissioner was not justified in confirming the....