TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rane movement area for consideration of Rs.11.78 Crores. iii) Hard surfacing including concreting for drains and access, trenches, pits, shed connecting concrete roads, parking area and ramps other than work shop floor areas for consideration of Rs.7.85 Crores. iv) Hard surfacing including concrete flooring for workshop areas for consideration of Rs.26.69 Crores. 2. These services were found classifiable under "Works Contract Services" (WCS) and liable to service tax. However, since the appellant has not discharged the service tax during the period 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2012, SCN dt.06.05.2014 was issued demanding, inter alia, an amount of Rs.5,87,01,760/- under proviso to Sec 73(1) of the Finance Act under dredging service and Rs.7,80,32,800/- under WCS. It was also proposed to appropriate the amount of Rs.5,87,01,760/- and Rs.2,00,00,000/- already paid by the appellant towards their liability under respective categories of service. 3. Briefly stated, the department relied on the following documents as indicated in Para 18 of the SCN, which are reproduced for ease of reference: a) Copy of letter of award bearing No. SKL/NEC/Shipyard/2011-12 dt.04.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither informed the department nor paid to the department. Similarly, it was not reflected in the ST3 Returns filed in the month of April, 2012, which tantamount to suppression with an intention to evade the collection of service tax. 6. On adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority framed the following issues: i) Whether the services covered under RA Bill No. 01 dt.12.03.2012, issued by the assessee to M/s Sembmarine Kakinada Ltd, are taxable under the category of 'WCS' or not; ii) Whether the services covered under RA Bill No. 02 & 03 dt.12.03.2012 & 31.12.2012 respectively, issued by the assessee to M/s Sembmarine Kakinada Ltd, are taxable under the category of 'Dredging service' or not; iii) Whether the provisions under Sec 75, 76, 77 & 78 are attracted in the case or not. 7. In so far as the first issue is concerned, the Original Authority observed that the appellants have not contested the nature of the activity falling under WCS and also the fact that they had not opted for composition scheme for payment of service tax. He, however, examined the claim of the appellant under Exemption Notification Nos. 11/2011, 25/2007 & 25/2012. Notification No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as demanded and not eligible for benefit either under the Notification No. 25/2007 dt.22.05.2007 or under Notification No. 11/2011 dt.01.03.2011. The appellants are in appeal against this impugned order dt.29.05.2015. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the history of the case. He submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had decided to develop infrastructure facilities at Kakinada port on public-private partnership model with M/s Kakinada Seaport Ltd (KSPL) and in turn KSPL entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s Sembawang Shipyard Pvt Ltd, Singapore (Sembawang for short) for establishment of ship building activity in Kakinada port. They invited attention to G.O.M.s. No. 50 dt.30.10.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the effect that ship building facility had to be constructed within the existing port land and submerged land which is to be reclaimed. M/s Sembawang and the appellant entered into an Agreement dt.06.04.2011 for development of shipyard facility, which got subsequently amended on 24.02.2014. According to the terms of the Agreement, the scope of work included, inter alia, land and land dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the provisions of Notification No. 11/2011 and 25/2012. 12. On the other hand, learned AR for Revenue has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of their contention that they are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 11/2011 & 25/2012. According to him, the Notification No. 11/2011 is not applicable for workshop construction, construction of dolphins approach platform, hard surfacing for drains, trenches, pits, concrete road, parking areas, etc., as it is applicable for construction of wharves, quays, docks, jetties, etc., within a port and no other construction is exempted under the said notifications. He has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CC (Import) vs Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] in support of the strict interpretation of notification. He has further argued that the argument of the appellants that all constructions, facilities constructed in a port or any Customs notified area are exempt from service tax is not correct appreciation of exemption provided in Notification No. 11/2011. On the argument of the appellant that they have created a new port facility is not correct as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terms of the scope of work covered within the agreement, which primarily involved three broad categories viz., land and land development, marine infrastructure development and new building facilities. Essentially, it is part of the work which was undertaken by them towards the development of shipyard facilities at Kakinada Port. The appellant's reliance on GOMs No. 50 dt.30.10.2010 in support that the ship building facility is very much part of the Kakinada port has also been examined. This MO does not in any way supports the argument that the ship building is essentially part of the port, rather it gives an impression that ship building facility is also to emerge nearby, which can work in tandem with the existing port at Kakinada. Therefore, these are two distinct and standalone infrastructure, though having some common features. 16. The notifications claimed by the appellant have been examined in the impugned order by the Original Authority in detail. In so far as Notification No. 25/2012 is concerned, since the service rendered and bills raised by the assessee were well before 01.07.2012, in respect of RA Bill No. 01, the same notification is obviously not applicable to the a....