TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal of the appellant by upholding the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is a proprietorship concern and was registered with the service tax department for "Construction of Civil Structures". An investigation was carried out against the appellant on the suspicions that the appellant is rendering taxable service namely "Commercial and Industrial Construction" to M/s IOCL and other oil companies i.e. M/s BPCL and M/s HPCL and is not paying the service tax. 2.1 The appellant was summoned and his statement was recorded wherein he has admitted that he had been providing taxable services to M/s IOCL and other oil companies for last five years and also gave details of year wise gross a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order, has rejected his appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and without ascertaining as to what kind of services were rendered by the appellant to the oil companies. 4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that it has been presumed that the appellant has rendered services of 'Commercial Construction Service', whereas in fact, the appellant has mainly fitted oil tanks in pits; the appellant digs big pits and fits oil tanks in the said pits; in certain cases, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CESTAT Chandigarh b) Mehta Construction Company vs. CCE, Panchkula - Final Order No. 60078/2024 dated 05.03.2024 - CESTAT Chandigarh c) Bajrang Lal Gupta & others vs. CCE, Delhi-III - Final Order No. 60147-60149/2023 dated 05.06.2023 - CESTAT Chandigarh d) Srishti Constructions vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana - Final Order No. 60920/2018 dated 07.03.2018 - CESTAT Chandigarh e) Real Value Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. CGST, Chennai - 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT-MAD. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that in spite of many reminders, the appellant did not provide the details of the services rendered by him and the amounts receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Structures'. In view of the different contracts produced before us, we find that the nature of the contracts with the oil companies was composite contract which includes the materials such as cement, sand, bricks, electric & electrical goods, machinery and fitting etc. We also find that the appellant has not availed any cenvat credit on the goods and input services used for rendering the output services of 'Works Contract'. We also find that the department has also accepted in a way that the appellant has provided the 'Works Contract Service' because both the lower authorities have given exemption @67% under Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. 7. Further, we find that M/s IOCL, to whom the appellant has rendered the services ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction Service as well as Repair and Maintenance Service. Hence we are of the view that the confirmation of demand under the category of WCS will not be proper particularly in view of the decision of the Tribunal in case of Ashish Ramesh Dasanvar wherein Tribunal has taken the view that demand for Service Tax is to be set aside if the Show Cause Notice proposed a classification different from WCS for construction activity." 9.2 The Principal Bench in the case of M/s Gurjar Construction (supra) has also examined such a position and observed that a demand made under a particular category cannot be sustained under a different category. 10. Hence, by following the ratios of the above said decisions (cited above) which are squarely appli....