TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as such Adjudicating Authority did not have the benefit of examination and applicability of the same to the facts of the present case. Therefore the adjudicating authority must reconsider the entire matter based on the Judgments which were passed much after the impugned order passed by him. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority. Since this appeal is of 2013, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass denovo order within two months from the date of this order. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Amal Dave Advocate for the Appellant Shri Tara Prakash, Deputy Commissioner (AR)for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtook the activity of conducting repairs of pipelines used for transporting drinking water, along with maintenance and repairs of civil structures. All these activities were undertaken for the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation. The Ld. Commissioner classified the said activities under Management, Maintenance or Repair Service and confirmed the Service tax under such category of service. The issue of classification of the activities in the nature of Repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar service in relation to, building or civil structure, pipeline or conduit has been settled by the Larger Bench of Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Lanco Infratech Limited vs. CCE ST. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing water to villages, which is a sovereign function of the State, the activity was not eligible to Service tax. Subsequently the Large Bench of Hon ble Tribunal also held that the activity would more appropriate be classifiable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and if being undertaken for the Government for non-commercial purpose, would not be eligible to Service tax. Furthermore for the same period, for the same activity, for other assessee, the department has taken a view that the activities are covered by the retrospective exemption given by virtue of Notification No. 12/2012-ST dated 17.03.2012 and not eligible to Service tax. Therefore in the overall circumstances of the case the appellant has not committed any fraud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
