Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (12) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant and reduced the demand from Rs. 68,44,849/- to Rs. 11,82,420/- alongwith interest and reduced penalty of Rs. 6,15,198/-. But the respondent has not accepted the grounds of appeal in respect of exempted services of site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving work for road construction and water supply. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the quantum of service tax demand on appellant vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-18-2019-20 25.04.2019 as under : - Category of Service Total Service Tax demanded Service Tax ought to have been demanded after giving cum tax benefit. Service tax demand from Oct-12 to June-13 (Time barred) Service tax demand not sustainable on merit out of column (3)-(4) Service t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2015 for which the mandatory penalty to be imposed is Rs. 5,67,223/- and accordingly, the total mandatory penalty to be imposed is Rs. 6,15,198/-. The lower authority upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Section 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 in the impugned order in appeal. 1.2 As regard the demand of Rs. 11,82,420/- upheld by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) the reasoning given is that the appellant are not doing construction activity and hence they should not be classifiable under works contract. 1.3 Being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, the present appeal is filed. 2. Shri Ajay Benarjee, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the whole burden of activities of loading and unloading was on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the above pleas appellant under no circumstances would fall under the classification of "Supply of tangible goods services" on rental basis. 2.2 He submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has arbitrarily classified the same for the confirmation of demand of service tax on them which is bad in law especially when there are number of judicial precedents. The appellant would like to relay on the following judgments:- * 2018(12) GSTL 185 (Tri. Chennai) International Sea Port Dredging Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai. * 2018 (18) GSTL 434 (Tri. Del) Alok Guha Vs. Commr. Of C. EX & S.T. Raipur 2.3 He further submits that since, the appellant have provided the transportation service and being a proprietary firm, the service tax liability is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....em to M/s. L& T for Govt. undertaking GIDC, if the exemption is extended to M/s. L&T under Works contract and it should be extended to them also under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 (w.e.f. 01.07.2012) under Sr. No. 12 (e). He placed reliance on the following board circular and judgments:- * Board Circular No. 147/16/2011-ST * 2015-TIOL-768-CESTAT-BANG-LB Va. M/S LANCO INFRATECH LTD M/S JAYAPRAKASH GAYATHRI PROJECTS LTD M/S GAYATHRI BCBPPL M/S RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD M/S GAYATHRI PROJECTS LTD. * 2018(12) GSTL 185 (Tr- Chennai) International sea port dredging Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai. * 2018 (18) GSTL 434 (Tri. Del) Alok Guha Vs. Commr. Of C. EX & S.T. Raipur 3. Shri Rajesh Nathan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... regard we find that the appellant have claimed the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 (w.e.f. 01.07.2012) under Sr. No. 12 & 13(a). The same are reproduced below:- "12. Service provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alternation of - ........................................ (e) Pipeline, conduit or plant for (i) water supply (ii) water treatment or, (iii) sewerage treatment or disposal; 13. Service provided by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alternation of- (a) a ....