TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted the contentions put ahead by the appellant 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the entire case is booked on the basis of the specified records available and the benefit of proviso to Section 78(1) ibid is available for the period from 08.04.2011 to 13.05.2015 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the vehicles supplied by them. For appellant the output service is loading and unloading activities of transportation of raw materials through the vehicles supplied by them for construction of road projects only. Hence, in view 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te formation, excavation are of as sub-contractor job allotted to them. Hence, they are entitled for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 (w.e.f. 01.07.2012) under Sr. No. 13 (a). Whereas as regards to the site formation, excavation etc. services provided by them 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 G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on work and Rs. 10,64,431/- related to water supply project, we find that these services are related to construction of road provided to M/s L & T and in turn L& T has got the work done from the appellant for execution of contract for the governmental authority i.e. GIDC (Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation). In this 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 -....