TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lanco Infratech Limited [2015 (5) TMI 37 - CESTAT BANGALORE (LB)], where it was held that Where under an agreement, whether termed as works contract, turnkey or EPC, the principal contractor, in terms of the agreement with the employer/ contractee, assigns the works to a sub-contractor and the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such works passes on accretion to or incorporation into the works on the property belonging to the employer/ contractee, the principal contractor cannot be considered to have provided the taxable (works contract) service enumerated and defined in Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/559 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and imposed penalties. The Adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands under the category of Works Contract Services. 4. Ld. Counsel, at the outset, submits that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lanco Infratech Limited [2015(38)STR 709 (Tri.-LB)]. Subsequently, he draws the attention of the Bench to the work order, when the contract was executed by them, by Rajasthan Government and submits that the project is for transmission of drinking/potable water to the SEZ area. He would submit that this is not accepted by the Adjudicating authority despite the fact that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. 5. Ld. DR submits that the water which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning projects under clause (e) of Explanation (ii) in the definition of WCS or is excluded from the ambit of WCS since it is in respect of a Dam and thus stands excluded from WCS, as defined. 8. After framing the said issue, the Larger Bench in para 21 has specifically stated as under: Issues (B) (C) and (D) (i) Construction of canals for irrigation or water supply, construction or laying of pipelines/conduits for lift irrigation conceived and integrated into a dam project, must be classified as works contract in respect of dam and is thus excluded from the scope of Works Contract Service defined in Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act, in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments of pre-existing taxable services like ECIS, CICS or COCS; and other services when bundled to amount to turkey/EPC. (iii) Construction of canals/pipelines/conduits to support irrigation, water supply or for sewerage disposal, when provided to Government/Government undertakings would be for non-commercial, non-industrial purposes, even when executed under turnkey/ERPC contractual mode and would fall within the ambit of clause (b). Explanation (ii) of Section 65(105)(zzzza); and would consequently not be eligible to Service Tax, in view of the exclusion enacted in clause (b). 9. It can be seen that the above reproduced ratio of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal squarely covers the issue in the case in hand. Though this point was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
