TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals), CGST, Chandigarh, whereby two appeals filed before the Commissioner by the Respondent was allowed and Order-in-Original was set aside. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are taken together for discussion and decision. The details of both the appeals are given here in below: Sr. No. Service Tax Involved Penalty Period of dispute 1. Rs. 1,85,54,894/- Rs. 9,25,000/- under Section 76 & 20,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act,1994 2013-14 to 2014-15 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent are registered with the Department under Service tax for services under the category of Erection, Commissioning & Installation service, Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- under Section 76 of the Act and Rs. 10,000+Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent filed two appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the original authority. Hence, the present appeal filed by the Revenue. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department submits that the impugned order dropping the demand by giving the benefit of Notification No. 25/2012 is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the services provided by the respondent are not covered under S. No. 12(a) of the exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.2 He further submits that Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T, Lucknow Vs. M/s Shalimar Corp Ltd. vide Final Order No. 70039/2019 dated 08.01.2019 has dealt with the identical case of multi level parking and has held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax on the construction of the multi level parking because the said activity cannot be called commercial activity. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record, we find that the only issue involved in the present appeals is regarding the applicability of the service tax in respect of construction of multi level parking by the assessee. Further, we note that the respondent has constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round parking, to decongest the overcrowded surface parking areas and to have better utilization of under utilized parking areas. 8. Further, we find that the issue is squarely covered also by the decision of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T, Lucknow Vs. M/s Shalimar Corp Ltd. (cited Supra), wherein also the identical issue was involved and the Tribunal has held as under : 2. After hearing both the sides we find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to the taxability of the construction of multilevel parking by the assessee in terms of the agreement entered with M/s Lucknow Development Authority. The Original Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand on two grounds. ....