Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 517 - AT - Service TaxCommercial or Industrial Construction Service as defined under section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Activities primarily are digging of land, extraction of core and soil stabilization and do not fall under category of Industrial or Commercial Construction Service. He further submits that their activities fall under Site Formation & Clearance, Excavation, Earth moving & Demolition Services as defined under section 65(97a). Since Reservoir is a water body, no service tax is leviable as water bodies are excluded from levy of service tax under section 65(97a) - Appellant has executed three agreements dated 11.05.2000 as amended 17.10.2000, 05,04,2005 and 21.11.2006 with M/s Radius Water Ltd - Held that:- Activities undertaken by the appellant are out of purview of Site Formation, and Clearance Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition Service as defined under Section 65(97a) of the Act. On the other hand activities mentioned in para 7.1 of the Order in Original are in nature of construction of civil structure which is further supported by the fact that entries in the balance sheet are under the Heading ‘Construction Receipts’ - Appellant are covered under category of Commercial or Industrial Construction service as defined under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act – Decided against the Assessee. Appellant is eligible for 67% abatement of gross amount in terms of Notification 15/2004 dated 10.09.2004 as amended by Notification 1/2006 dated 01.03.2006 – Held that:- Land and electricity was supplied free to the appellant. In such a case appellant is not eligible for the benefit of abatement under Notification 15/2004 as amended by 1/2006 dated 01.03.2006 – Decided against the Assessee. Extended period of limitation – Held that:- Appellant has not disclosed the value, did not take registration and also did not file any Returns to the department. In such a case extended period has rightly been invoked by the Commissioner and consequently the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 78 of the Act – Decided against the Assessee.
|