Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 516 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - scope of circular no. B1/6/2005 TRU - cleaning activity service - disposal of ‘fly ash’ emerging from thermal power plants - transportation of goods by road service - site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving and demolition service - goods transport agency service - clearing agency service - Held that: - The evacuation involves transfer by the pipe-lines in slurry form and allowing the ash to be deposited in the designated area with the water to be drained out thereafter. With the visit of the first appellate authority, the felicity of an elaborate description of the structure in the impugned order for a clearer insight into the issue is gratefully acknowledged. The aim and purpose of the taxable entry, evident from the circular supra, was to tax the activity rendered by providers ahead of another activity on the said land. Land is used for construction of buildings or facilities or is exploited for agriculture and mining. To the extent that some of these uses are to be encouraged, even at the cost of foregoing tax, in the larger interests of societal needs, the statute itself provides exclusion. The claim of the assessee that the circular supra suffices to limit the scope of tax does not stand the test of the statutory intent. The circular merely exemplifies the scheme of the tax entry. Whether the services have been rendered to the project proprietor by the assessee? - Held that: - We are unable to fault the finding of the first appellate authority that the site being handed over to the assessee for raising of the height of the ‘ash bund’ which is the subject matter of the contract, the clearance and excavation work is in relation to that activity and hence rendered to themselves. Had that portion of the work been executed by another person, the tax liability would devolve on that person for having rendered service to the assessee and not upon the assessee. Revenue, in its appeal, appears to have confused the construction work for site formation and excavation and has confounded it further by presuming that even such work as is covered by the definition has been rendered to the power plant by being the project proprietor. Persons, in the context of levy of service tax, have to be identified in accordance with the specific service rendered. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|