2023 (6) TMI 593 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Classification of services - Commercial and Industrial Construction service or Works contract service - providing services such as laying, jointing and testing pipes for water supply/drainage/effluent pipeline/ MLD water scheme, etc. provided to Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation - benefit of abatement under Notification No.1/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant have been providing service of laying down of pipes for drainage, water supply, affluent, etc. The work undertaken by the appellant is of the composite nature involving both supply of the goods as well as service. The appellants have classified their service under the Works Contract Service and has paid service tax.

The work orders which have been executed by the appellant for Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation have been perused by us and we find that the work orders involved supply of pipes for water supply, drainage as well as laying the same as per the engineering drawings. Thus, it is accepted that that the activity undertaken by the appellant involves both supply of material as well as service - It has also been claimed by the learned advocate that they have paid VAT/service tax on the goods supplied by them to M/s. GIDC.

In view of the above facts, it is convincing that the activity undertaken by the appellant is properly classifiable under Works Contract Service and since they have already paid service tax under the Works Contract Service, the Order-In-Original is found devoid of merit - the service provided by the appellant is rightly classifiable under the category of Works Contract Service as defined under Section 65 (105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- On taking note of the fact that the assessee has been regularly filing their service tax returns under the Works Contract Service as well as they have entered into a correspondence with the department during August 2008 upto 20th October 2008 and therefore, there are no element of fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts are involved therefore, the demand is barred by limitation and deserves to be set aside on limitation ground also.

Appeal allowed.