TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Ready-mix Concrete (RMC) to their customers on the basis of Purchase Orders placed by them. In some cases, the appellants arranged to pump the RMC to the desired floor at the construction site as per the requirement of the customer. It appeared to the Department that the activity undertaken by the appellants falls under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" and that the appellants have not discharged service tax of Rs.2,73,14,172/- during the period April 2008 to March 2009. Show cause notice dated 04.09.2009 was issued to the appellants. Vide the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority dropped demand of Rs.2,18,87,153/-; confirmed service tax of Rs.54,27,019/-; appropriated service tax of Rs.10,34,600/- and imposed a penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... J113 (S.C.) 6. Vikram Ready Mix Concrete (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of S.T., Delhi 2016(42) S.T.R. 866 (Tri. Del.) (affirmed by Supreme Court 2016 (42) S.T.R. J282 (S.C.)) 7. ACC Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka 2011 (8) TMI 1037 - Karnataka High Court. 8. Wagad Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. Of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara 2022(59) G.S.T.L. 95 (Tri. - Ahmd.) 9. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-ll Versus Larsen & Toubro Ltd., 2016 (4) TMI 329-CESTAT Mumbai 3.1. Learned Counsel submitted that the agreement between the appellants and the customers is with respect to the supply of RMC only and in some cases, it is pumped to the desired floor; even though, the charges for pumping are mentioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court. 3. Laxmi Engineering P Ltd Versus C.S.T. -Service Tax - Ahmedabad 2023 (4) TMI 348-CESTAT Ahmedabad 3.3. She further submits, without prejudice to the above that value of RMC supplied by the appellant qualifies for exclusion from the gross taxable value in terms of Notification No.12/2003; even if assuming that the appellant is providing construction services, services provided to SEZ are not taxable; since the alleged service provided by the appellant involves goods and services, the service needs to be categorized under Works Contract Act and accordingly cannot be taxed under Construction Services. Even after 16.06.2008, from which they started showing the pumping charges separately. She relies upon the following ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erely supplied RMC to their customers and depending on the request of the customers, they have arranged for pumping of the RMC to the higher floors at the construction sites and they have paid the applicable VAT on the same. They contended that in their own case, Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has decided the issue in their favour holding that the sale and delivery of RMC would not amount to rendering "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service". We have gone through the said contract which was in the form of Purchase Orders. Purchase Order dated 29.12.2008 issued by Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd., has footnote in the bottom stating "VAT extra at the rate of 4% against Form D-1, FOR at site basis. Pumping charges up to 5th floor at the rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taxable service. Finance Act, 1994 not being a law relating to commodity taxation but services are declared to be taxable under this law, the adjudication made under mistake of fact and law fails." We find that Tribunal in the case of Vikram Reddy Mix Concrete Pvt. Limited (supra) followed the above decision and such decision was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016 (42) STR J282 (SC). 7. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ACC Ltd. (supra) has relied upon the above cases and held that: "13. In view of the above judgments, it is clear that as per nature of product of RMC, every manufacturer who needs to supply RMC to the customer, apart from manufacturing, transportation, pumping and laying of concrete is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so charge an extra amount for installation. Option for installation is optional for the purchaser. For the reason that the dealer is charging installation charges, the dealer cannot be held to be a service provider. Therefore, we find that the argument of Revenue that the activity of the appellant amounts to "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" is incorrect. 9. Revenue argues that for the period after 16.06.2008, the appellants have their own classified the service under "Business Auxiliary Service" and the same has been appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority. We find that this argument is not correct. Judgment in the case of L&T was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015, holding that indivisible services ought to ....