2022 (11) TMI 1043

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, road, cable trench etc on behalf of Gujrat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd; (iii) Construction of a Transport Terminal Comprising of shops over the land provided by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, under Build, Transfer and Lease (BTL) Scheme; (iv) Construction of Residential Houses for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd., Gandhinagar; (v) Construction of Boy's Hostel Building for Navsari Agricultural University; (vi) General earth filling for the embankment construction behind retaining wall in Sabarmati River, Ahmedabad on behalf of Sabarmati River Front Development Corporation Ltd. Though appellant had provided the above work/ services covered under the taxable services of works contract service, Commercial & Industrial Construction Services, Construction of Complex Service and the Site formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earth Moving and Demolition Service, not paid the service tax. 2.1 After detail investigation show cause notice dated 18.03.2011 was issued to the Appellant proposing service tax demand and to imposed penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944. Thereafter, after following the due process, the Learned Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Finance Act, 1994 for government construction. Further transport terminals are specifically excluded from the definition of commercial or Industrial Construction services and are specifically exempted / not taxable. 3.2 He also submits that it is clear from the tender copy issued by M/s GSRTC that the Appellant has to use material and supply the services. The said services are properly classified under the taxable category of works contract services. In any case, the proper classification of Services performed for M/s GSRTC would be works contract service and therefore, not taxable under Commercial or Industrial Construction services as held by Ld. Commissioner. He placed reliance on the decision of M/s Real Value Promoters 2018-VIL-648-CESTAT-CHE-ST. 3.3 He further submits that demand of service tax under the taxable category of construction of complex services for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation is not sustainable. From the definition of residential complex as defined in Section 65(91a) of Finance Act, 1994 it is clear that if the construction of complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person then it is not taxable. He placed reliance on the followi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd.- 2018(8) GSTL 13(Guj.) * Rajendra Mittal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE- 2022 (3) TMI 1259 CESTAT (New Delhi) * India Guniting Corporation Vs. CCE,- 2021(2)TMI 400-CESTAT, New Delhi * Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar Vs. CCE- 2017-TIOL-3230-CESTAT -MUM * Sem Construction Vs. CCE- 2020 (8)TMI 739 -CESTAT Ahmedabad * Shree Hindustan Fabricators Vs. CCE- 2002(2)TMI -110-CESTAT -Ahmedabad * Messrs N J Devani Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2020(11)TMI -798 (GUJ) * Scone Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service tax- 2022-VIL-550-CESTAT-DEL-ST * Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax - 2022-TIOL-682-CESTAT-HYD. * ITD Cementation India Ltd. Vs. C.S.T. Mumbai-V- 2014(36)STR 897(Tri. Mumbai) 4. On the other hand, Learned Shri Vinod Lukose, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He submits that Appellant's claim that their services are under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction services and not under Works Contract Service is not acceptable as there is supply of goods also. Since the appellant's contract is supply of goods as well as Service same falls under works contract service. Apart from GETCO....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng judgments: * Final Order No. A/11471/2019 dated. 18.07.2019 - Shree Gurukrupa Construction Company Vs. CCE, Rajkot. * Commissioner Vs. L & T Ltd. -2012(26)STR J142 (Guj) * Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation Vs. CST, Bangalore - 2010(19)STR 32(Tri. Bang) * Karnataka Govt. Indurance Dept. Vs. Asst. CCE, Bangalore - 2012(26)STR521(Kar.) * Katira Construction Ltd. Vs. CST, Rajkot - 2016(46)STR 329(Tri. Ahmd) * Commissioner Vs. Lanco Infratech Ltd. 2016(43)STR J28 (SC) * Central India Engineering Co. Vs. CCE, Nagpur - 2016(44)STR 657 (Tri. Mum) * Chaitanya Constructions Vs. CST, Visakhapatnam -I 2015(38)STR 1146 (Tri. Bang) * Deogiri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad - 2017(5)GSTL 45 (Tri.-MUM) * Sew Construction Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2011(22)STR 666(Tri. Del) * Ambalal Chauhan Vs. CST, Raipur - 2020 (33) GSTL 187 (Chhattisgarh) * Graphite India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nashik - 2014(36)STR 948 (Tri. Mum) * Sheladia Rites Vs. CST, Visakhpatnam -I 2019(27)GSTL 707(Tri. Hyd) * Cellebrum Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2015-TIOL-1098-CESTAT -DEL * Krishna Engineering Works Vs. CCE, Vadodara -I- 2019(22)GSTL -409 (Tri. Ahmd.) * Greater Noida In....