2025 (7) TMI 1714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010 to 30.09.2011, the appellants were undertaking certain works, as under:- a) Works undertaken for municipal authorities - i. Laying of pipelines; ii. Shifting of pipelines; iii. Maintenance of pipelines. b) Works of government department relating to water distribution systems as sub-contractors; c) Construction of Elevated Level Storage Reservoir (ELSR) for APIIC (SEZ); d) Construction of water supply facilities at industrial growth center for APIIC; e) Works undertaken for Military Engineering Services (MES) - Certain civil and electrical works for Korukonda Sainik School; f) Certain repairs to Municipal Authority. The works at (a) to (e) above were cla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inance Act, 1994, for failure to pay service tax payable by the due dates prescribed on the service tax amounts mentioned at (i) and (ii) above and for non-filing of returns. 4. In relation to issue at (i) above, the adjudicating authority, inter alia, held that the contention of the appellants that in relation to the said work there was no commercial angle and the works were for government departments in view of the fact that as per explanation to section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, only the contracts for the purpose of carrying out the constructions in respect of sub-clause (ii) (b) of the explanation are governed by the condition 'primarily for the purpose of commerce or industry'. Whereas, the work mentioned in sub-clause (ii)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Services (ECIS) and not construction services, whereas, these services are held to be covered under construction service and not under ECIS. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of Lanco Infratech Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Hyderabad [2015 (38) STR 79 (Tri-LB)]. Moreover, it has also been held by the Coordinate Benches that laying of pipeline for municipalities and drinking water facility are not leviable to service tax. Reliance is placed on the following judgments a) CCE, Thiruchirappalli Vs Indian Hume Pipes Co Ltd [2015 (40) STR 214 (Mad)] b) Angraj Civil Projects Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Lucknow [2020 (34) GSTL 574 (Tri-All)] c) IVRCL-Navyuga-SEW JV Vs CST, Hyderabad [2020 (34) GSTL 468 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....preme Court in UOI Vs GMR Aerospace Engineering Ltd [2023 (6) CENTAX 155 (SC)]. 10. Similarly, the demand on construction of water supply facilities at the industrial growth center for APIIC, is also not tenable as APIIC is a public authority and their primary objective is promotion of industries and not to engage in commerce. We find that reliance placed by the appellant on the following cases laws is relevant. a) CCE, Nashik Vs Maharashtra Industrial Devl. Corpn. [2018 (9) GSTL (Bom)] b) Karnataka Industrial Areas Dev. Board Vs CCT, Bangalore North [2020 (40) GSTL 33 (Tri-Bang)] c) BG Shirke Construction Technology Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Pune-III [2020 (43) GSTL 242 (Tri-Mumbai)] d) Gujarat Adani Insti....