TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5, J/14, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi, had constructed the earthen embankment for F-1 Race Track (Formula One Grand Prix) for M/s Jaypee Sports International Ltd., NOIDA (Gautam Buddh Nagar) (hereinafter referred to as the Owner), but had not discharged their appropriate service tax liability. Based there upon the investigations in the matter were conducted. After perusing the chart of bills and the copy of contracts as provided by the appellants, department observed as follows: (i) Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation & Earth Moving, Soil Stabilization and Demolition etc. Service as defined under Section 65(97a) and taxable under Section 65(105)(zzza), provided under: (a) Contract No. JPSK/EMB/21-09 dated 01.11.2009 as e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aration Service' defined under Section 65(105)(zzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Contractor vide his letter dated 06.08.2014, has claimed full exemption from payment of Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 17/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005, on the ground that the earthwork undertaken by them related to roads specially laid for conducting motor race on it and other connecting roads within the Buddha International Circuit. 3.1 It is further submitted that the service under another contract (as mentioned above) pertained to construction work of storm water and sewage. The work, as genuinely understood by the appellant was in the nature of public welfare and non commercial industrial, thereby not covered under the scope of taxable Service unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the order under challenge. It is mentioned that to claim the benefit of Notification No. 17/2005 dated 07.06.2005, the construction should have been for public road. The said notification is wrongly relied by the appellant with the sole intent to evade tax. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the parties and perusing the entire record of impugned appeal memo, it is observed and held as follows: 5.1 Apparently and admittedly the appellants had entered into three contracts (as mentioned above) agreements with M/s. Jaypee Sports International Ltd. for the construction of the earthen embankment for F-1 Racing Track and other roads at SDZ site, Section 25, Y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5.3 Bare perusal clarifies that activity of construction of road which is meant for use by general public is exempted from whole duty. Admittedly appellant constructed car race track. Whether such track can be called as road for use by general public. What is exempted in the Notification No. 17/2005 is the service, as named in Entry No. 13 thereof, for construction of road for use of general public but not the services for constructing road simpliciter. Emphasis therein is on the word 'public'. "Public place" is defined in Section 2(34) of Motor Vehicles Act as "a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access. We are of the opinion that the accent is not on the circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nefit of the Notification no. 17/2005 appellant should have constructed a road meant for use of public i.e. a public road/place. The race track constructed by appellant is apparently and admittedly is not meant for public access as a matter of right. In the light of discussion about definition of public place above, we hold that though impugned race track is a road but public has no access as a matter of right thereupon. Hence we hold that the impugned race tracks are not meant for public use, hence are not covered under Entry No. 13 of Notification 17/2005. The appellant is held to have wrongly availed the exemption under said notification. 6. In the light of above discussion we find no reason to differ from the findings arrived at by the....