TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 2041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). They have entered into an agreement with DMRC for supply of equipments as well as design, manufacture, installation testing and commissioning of 'Electrical, Low-Voltage System and Fire Fighting Works' of IT Park of the said project. Relying upon the Board Circular No. 116/10/2009-ST dated 15.09.2009 wherein it was clarified that if the infrastructural projects are built/developed as a revenue generating measure, such activity should be charged to service tax, the Commissioner observing that the 'Information and Technology Park' of DMRC being used for commercial activities as per their letter dated 23.06.2009 confirmed the service tax demand on the appellant by invoking the extended period of limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices were liable to service tax only from 01.06.2007 as they were considered to be Works Contract Services. The Tribunal in appellant's own case referred supra, observed as follows: "8. In our considered view, the entire issue can be disposed off by coming to conclusion whether the appellants' contracts entered into with DMRC can be works contract or contracts which can be vivisected, to arrive the value of the materials and the services. It is seen from the records, and recorded in the Order-in-Original at para No. 28 that the appellants had categorically contended that the contracts in question are turnkey contracts and are not liable to service tax prior to 1-6-2007. On perusal of the findings accorded by the Adjudicating Author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es as works contracts. It is also seen from the records produced before us that the deduction of VAT is termed as WCT 2% i.e. Works Contract Tax 2% which would indicate that the appellants as well as DMRC has acted on the contract as that being a "Works contract". If that be so, the contention of the assessee that the leviability of service tax under the works contract would be effective only from 1-6-2007 is correct......" 5. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. TRF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur vide Final Order No.75326-75327/2024 dated 21.02.2024 in a similar set of facts observed as follows: "6. On perusal of records and the arguments advanced by both sides, we find that it is not in dispute ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove the non-service elements from the composite works contracts has been made by any of the aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract. ................................................................... 41. We are afraid that there are several errors in this paragraph. The High Court first correctly holds that in the case of composite works contracts, the service elements should be bifurcated, ascertained and then taxed. The finding that this has, in fact, been done by the Finance Act, 1994 Act is wholly incorrect as it ignores the second Gannon Dunkerley d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable to pay any service tax. For the period, post 01.06.2007, there is no proposal made by the revenue under works contract service, therefore, in the light of the decision of Sristhi Constructions (supra), we hold that the service tax is not payable by the appellant wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "In view of the above analysis, we hold that on merits, the appropriate classification of the services in question is "Works Contract Service" and show cause notices not allege to demand service tax under Woks Contract, therefore, the demand of service tax is set-aside. We also hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set-aside and appeals are allowed with consequential....