TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant by upholding the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant was a proprietorship concern and was registered with the service tax department. The department entertained a view that the appellant had provided taxable service namely "Commercial or Industrial Construction service" specified under Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 without payment of service tax and without following the procedures as laid down under Sections 68, 69 & 70 of the Finance Act, read with Rules 5, 6 & 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. An investigation was carried out against the appellant and appellant was summoned and its statement was recorded. The department also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot 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 the show cause notice has been issued on the basis of presumption that the appellant has rendered services of 'commercial construction service', whereas it is factually incorrect, 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 appellant has mainly supplied materials and not rendered services. 4.2 The learned Counsel further submits that the nature of work carried out by the appellant does not fall und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny material from the department and has been regularly filing the periodical returns. He further submits that the department has failed to bring on record any material to invoke the extended period as provided under proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act. 4.6 In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relies on the following decisions: a) Yadvinder Singh Contractor vs. CGST, Ludhiana - Final Order No. 61392/2025 dated 17.09.2025 - CESTAT Chandigarh b) H.P. Singh Chadha & another vs. CGST, Ludhiana - Final Order No. 60009-60011/2024 dated 08.01.2024 - CESTAT Chandigarh 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present case, the appellant was registered with the department for providing the 'Construction of Civil 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 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be liable for classification under Works Contract Service only. But we note that Show Cause Notice has proposed the demand for service tax under the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction 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 th....