TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Commissionerate Delhi against the appellant. The Department observed that the appellant had rendered taxable services to Delhi Development Authority [DDA] for Commonwealth Games [CWG] 2010 related projects. However, the appellant had not discharged service tax against payments received from DDA. In response to department letters, the appellant submitted copies of award letter/agreements and the bills along with details of payment received. On scrutiny of documents submitted by the appellant, the department observed that the appellant had provided construction services, including refurbishment of training venues for various sports at Siri Fort Complex and Saket Sports Complex, laying of water supply line at Saket Sports Complex and construction of temporary parking at Vivek Vihar and upgradation of Yamuna Sports Complex for which they received a payment of Rs. 1,59,38,320/- from the DDA. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2014 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation to the appellant demanding Service Tax Rs. 16,41,644/- under Section 73(1) along with interest under Section 75 and imposition of penalty under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that it had not executed a certain work, then the onus was upon the revenue to prove that the appellant had provided the taxable services. Learned counsel also stated that the appellant had executed composite works contracts with material and therefore eligible for abatement in terms of Notification No. 01/2006-ST. Learned counsel further submitted that the services provided by the appellant to DDA was squarely covered by the exemption provided to services to Govt./Quota Agency. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the demand. 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department submitted that the Central Board of Excise & Customs vide circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004 had clarified that certain constructions (e.g., roads, airports, long-distance pipelines) are excluded from service tax, but the appellant's projects do not fall under these exclusions as the construction of pipeline running within an industrial or commercial complex are not long distance pipelines and are within the scope of levy. He contended that the appellant was engaged in projects related to Aquatics, Badminton, Squash, and Tennis complexes constructed by the DDA. Learned Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services, in relation to building or civil structure; or (d) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, building or civil structure, pipeline or conduit, which is - (i) used, or to be used, primarily for; or (ii) occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with; or (iii) engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in, commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include such services provided in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams;" 6. From the records, we note that the nature of services provided by the appellant are as follows: Sl No: Description of work Amount Recd Date of Payment 1 Refurbishment of Training Venues for Aquatics, Badminton, Squash and Tennis at Siri Fort Complex and Badminton Training venue at Saket Sports Complex 68,02,615 04.11.2010 2 Laying of wate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. Similarly, in the case of Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd., & Others Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-III, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal vide its Final Order NO. 50525-50527/2022 dt 13.06.2022 has held as follows: "8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. In said decision it has been held that the services provided for the sports facilities owned by State would not be chargeable to tax under commercial or industrial construction service. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The activity undertaken in a stadium, which belongs to Government and is used for non-commercial activities, would not be covered under definition of CCIS as held by Tribunal in the case of B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. In view of above, it is apparent that the activity of affixing chairs in a stadium would be covered under the description of service covered under commercial or industrial construction service, but not chargeable to tax for the reason that the structure for which the said activity has been undertaken is not of commercial nature. ....