2018 (11) TMI 1642 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of exemption - contradictory decisions by the same Appellate Authority - construction activity related to the services provided to Noida Authority which is admittedly not for commercial purpose - exemption Notification No.11/2010-ST. - HELD THAT - Apart from the fact that Commissioner having jurisdiction over the same assessee s has dropped the demand relatable to the same issue for the earlier period which has not been shown to have been set aside by any higher appellate forum the Tribunal in number of decisions has observed that the notification in question is very wide and grant exemption to any service relatable to transmission of electricity - there is no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Taxability - construction activity related to the services provided to Noida Authority which is admittedly not for commercial purpose - HELD THAT - The Appellate Authority has rightly held in favour of the assessee and we find no infirmity in the same - appeal of revenue rejected. The review order dated 06.05.2016 is passed by a committee of Commissioners consisting of the same Commissioner Shri J.R. Panigrahi Commissioner of Central Excise Ghaziabad along with Shri M.K. Srivastava Commissioner of Central Excise Noida - We really fail to understand that have the same Commissioner having dropped the demand in respect of the same party for the earlier period on the same issue has taken different view while reviewing the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of exemption Notification No.11/2010-ST.
2. Taxability of construction activity related to services provided to Noida Authority.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is the applicability of exemption Notification No.11/2010-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand for the earlier period for the same issue, which had not been set aside by any higher appellate forum. The Tribunal has consistently granted exemption under this notification for any service related to the transmission of electricity. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the revenue's appeal.

2. The second issue pertains to the taxability of construction activity related to services provided to the Noida Authority, which was not for commercial purposes. The Appellate Authority correctly ruled in favor of the assessee on this matter, and the Tribunal found no fault in this decision. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was rejected.

3. Additionally, the Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the actions of the Commissioner who had dropped the demand for the same party for the earlier period on the same issue but took a different view while reviewing the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). This inconsistency was highlighted, and based on the observations made, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the applicability of the exemption notification and the taxability of construction activity related to services provided to the Noida Authority. The Tribunal also pointed out the inconsistency in the actions of the Commissioner, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal.