TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d penalties has been upheld. 1.1. The facts relevant for the present adjudication are that M/s Manohar Construction Company, the appellant herein are not being registered with the Service Tax Department. However, on information received from the Income Tax Department, it was observed that in their income tax returns under Section 194 (c), the appellant had disclosed the receipt of income for rendering 'Works Contract Services'. The matter was investigated, the appellant was enquired. The appellant mentioned to be engaged in executing work of construction and repair relating to road and canal for M/s Jain Irrigation Systems Limited and also for M/s Parth Infrastructure Private Limited under MOU dated 17.01.2013 and an agreement dated 11.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the appellant has provided service of construction of roads/canals for the governmental authorities through their main contractor, namely, M/s Parth Infrastructure Private Limited and M/s Jain Irrigation Systems Limited. The activity of the said construction is exempted under entry No. 12 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and the sub-contractor is also eligible for the said exemption in terms of entry No. 29(h) of the said notification. The said submission has been considered by the adjudicating authority below when the said services are provided to M/s Parth Infrastructure Private Limited. However, similar activity has been denied exemption when it was provided to the main contractor M/s Jain Irrig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore reported as 2024 (3) TMI 286-CESTAT NEW DELHI. 3.1 While submitting on merits, the finding in the impugned order have been reiterated. In addition, it is submitted that the appellant did not produce any evidence as that of contract or agreement with M/s Jain Irrigation who had sub-contracted the relevant contract to the appellants. Thus, there can be no infirmity in the findings of the impugned order where particular demand against M/s Jain Irrigation Systems has been confirmed. The partial demand has been dropped while giving due consideration, the exemption available with the contractors as well as the sub-contractors while providing services to the governmental authorities. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are providing services by way of works contract to another main contractor providing exempted works contract services. 5. In the light of these observation, the only controversy in the present case is: Whether the amount of consideration for rendering the exempted services received by the appellant from M/s ECP Housing (India) Private Limited instead of it from the service recipient of appellant viz. M/s Jain Irrigation Systems Limited will render appellant not eligible for the said exemption. 6. We have perused Section 65 B (44) of the Finance Act which defines 'Service' to mean any activity to be carried out by a person for another for consideration. Apparently for any activity to be called as service, the source of payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 362 wherein the CA Certificates are held admissible documents for the proof of the contents therein. The findings in the case of Warsi Buildcon are held not applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the present appeal. 8. Resultantly, we hold that the payment received from M/s ECP Housing (India) Private Limited was as good as the payment from M/s Jain Irrigation Systems Limited, the service recipient. The appellant, the sub-contractor for providing 'Works Contract Service' for roads and canals is exempted from paying tax in terms of entry at Sr. No. 29 of Mega exemption notification No. 25/2012; The main contractor being eligible for exemption under entry No. 12 of the said Mega exemption notification. Receipt of amount of con....