TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived an information about the various contractors including the appellant that while performing the work of civil construction, the contractors are mis-using the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 by paying the service tax after availing the benefit of abatement under the said notification, while simultaneously availing the Cenvat credit which was not admissible under the said notification. 1.1 While investigating upon the said information several documents were called from the appellant. On scrutiny thereof including the ST-3 returns for the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012, it was observed that the appellant has provided construction services to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and the amounts received from the hospital are clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside on this ground itself. It is submitted that the appellant, since the stage of filing reply to the Show Cause Notice and even while appearing before the original adjudicating authority, has submitted that the Commissioner has wrongly classified the appellant's execution of works contract with Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society under the category of "commercial or industrial construction service". The courts have held that execution of works contract is not classifiable under any category other than "execution of works contract" service as defined in section 65(105)(zzzza) of Finance Act, 1994. The noticee was not required to pay service tax under the category of execution of works contract service as construction of building for commercial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am Trust Vs. Union of India WP (C ) No. 880/2009 where the hospital was held to be running solely for philanthropic/charitable purposes and not for the purposes of profit. Commissioner (Appeals) have failed to give any findings on this plea of the appellant instead has opted to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority. Learned counsel submitted that the entire material was before Commissioner (Appeals). 3.4 Learned counsel further submitted that entire material was before Commissioner (Appeals) all requisite documents, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have taken the independent view remanding the matter back to the original adjudicating authority is not a reasonable order. Accordingly, is prayed to be set aside. Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital itself wherein the hospital was held to be a charitable institute, and to show that the nature of services of the appellant were clarified to be in the nature of Work Contract Service/composite service as different from the service simplicitor of construction of Commercial or Industrial Complex service. Similar were the submission of the appellant before original adjudicating authority. However, we observe that the original adjudicating authority has rendered finding only with respect to the allegation about the recipient of impugned service, i.e. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital to be a commercial organization. The only other finding is about invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty. There is ....