TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the officers of Central Excise, Rajkot, it was observed that the Appellant has also shown value of service charged against exempted services in their ST-3 returns filed for services under the taxable category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service.' On being asked, appellant informed that they had earned the said income against service provided viz. 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services' and 'Renting of Immovable Property' Services and contended that the said income was on account of providing services to Kandla Port Trust which they believed to be exempted from the payment of Service tax, as per the Notification No. 25/2007-ST dated 22.05.2007. As regard renting of immovable property, they stated that they had allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2005-06 to 2009-10. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 15-04-2011 was issued proposing the Service tax demand along with interest and penalty. The Adjudicating authority vide impugned order confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the impugned order present Appeal has been filed. 03. Shri Amal Dave, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Learned Commissioner has confirmed Service tax on the amount of Rs. 16,17,443/- which is the amount received by the Appellant from the Kandla Port Trust for constructing Watch Tower. The activity done by the Appellant is squarely covered under exemption Notification No. 25/2007-ST dated 22.05.2007, whereas exemption has been given to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of erection, commissioning or installation services. Since the appellant undertook the activity of laying down the Central underground drainage line for Kandla Port trust which is a State Government enterprise, the activity was not commercial in nature and hence even otherwise could not be taxed under the category of commercial -industrial construction services. However, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand under the head of erection, commissioning or installation services and hence when the service tax is confirmed under the wrong category of service, the demand is even otherwise not sustainable. He placed reliance on decision of M/s Lanco Infratech Ltd. - 2015 (38) STR 709. 3.2 He further submits that appellant constructed resident....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite amount as an amount which was recovered towards dredging activity and confirmed the demand under the head of dredging service. When the appellant had entered into such composite contract, the adjudicating authority could not have taken the entire value of such contract as being towards dredging activity and could not have confirmed the demand of all the composite work under the category of dredging. Since the contract was composite one and also involved material required for completion of work, by no stretch of imagination, it could be taxed under the category of dredging. The activity could at most be taxed under commercial or industrial construction service, then the appellant was eligible for 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervices, he submits that appellant had given godowns and warehouse on rent and was collecting periodical rent on such godowns. The activity undertaken by the appellant was hence renting of immovable property service inasmuch as the entire godown was given on rent. Renting of immovable property service become taxable service on 01.06.2007 and not before such date. The appellant had collected the amount of rent by raising bill during the FY 2005-06 and 2006-07 before the levy of such service was introduced. The adjudicating authority has wrongly confirmed the demand under the category of storage and warehousing of goods services. The adjudicating authority could not have confirmed the demand under such category of service inasmuch as the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed that renting of immovable property services become taxable service on 01.06.2007 and they had collected the amount of rent by raising bills during the period FY 2005-06 and 2006-07 before the levy of such service. However such facts require verification. 5.1 We have also observed that the submission of the learned Counsel as well as submission made in the appeal memorandum that the adjudicating authority has not dealt with issue of service provided under the category of 'construction of complex service services in proper perspective. Appellant claimed that they had not constructed any building or part thereof, having more than 12 residential units. Further the bunglow constructed by the appellant at KPT colony for use by the emplo....