TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1043
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of building such a control room, structure and equipments, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terminal for M/s GSRTC is not sustainable as the said work is not commercial in nature. There is exclusion in the definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction as defined in Section 65(25b) of the 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 defi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The construction of Boy's Hostel is not a residential complex. Hence the service tax demand not sustainable. 3.8 He also placed reliance on the following judgments in support of their above submission: • CGST Vs. BMS Project Pvt. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stigated by DGCEI and during the investigation, it was found that appellant had provided various aforesaid services without payment of service tax and without service tax registration. Some of the agreement between service recipients have clearly mentioned that applicable service tax would be payable by the Appellant. 4.5 He placed reliance on the following 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) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 45/2010 -ST dated 20.07.2010. The decisions relied upon by the Appellant in this context also support the claim of appellant, however we do not find any finding on this aspect in impugned order. Similarly from the definition of "commercial or industrial construction service" defined in Section 65(25b) we also find that the said definition exclude the services provided in respect of road and transport terminals. The definition of residential complex as defined in Section 65(91a) of Finance Act 1994 also does not include a complex which is intended for personal use as residence, the explanation clause of said definition also defined personal use includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration. The Notification No. 17/2005 -S.T. dated 07.06.2005 exempts Site Formation and clearance, excavation and demolition and such other similar activities carried out in the course of construction of roads, Airports, Railways, terminal, bridges, tunnels, dams, ports or other ports etc. from the levy of service tax. In respect of other services also appellant claim the service tax exemption. In support of their arguments appellant also produ....