TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd supplies aspect. - matter remitted back to adjudicating authority in view of circular dated 23/2/2009. - ST/7, 894/09 - Final Order Nos. 1498 & 1499/2010 - Dated:- 6-12-2010 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Mr. B.S.V. Murthy Mr. K.S. Ravishankar and Mr. A.R. Nayak, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. D.P. Nagendra Kumar, Jt.CDR for the Revenue. Per M.V.Ravindran These two appeals are directed against the Orders-in-original No.43/2008 dt. 30/9/2008 No.38/2009 dt. 25/8/2009. Since the issue involved in these two appeals pertains to the very same assessee, for two different periods, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2.The appellant herein is Govt. of Karnataka undertaking and engaged in construction of building, road ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngle. The Adjudicating Authority did not agree with the appellants contention and held that the appellant is liable for discharge of service tax liability on the amounts received for execution of the contracts, confirmed the demand, demanded interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 77 but did not impose any penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of these orders, appellant is before us. 3.Ld. Counsel would submit that the impugned order is totally wrong in coming to the conclusion that the activity of the appellant falls under the category of management, maintenance or repairs of immovable property as the appellant always was taking the work of roads which is not a immovable property, much less a private prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture and hence the entire activity could not have fall under the category of maintenance, management or repairs of immovable properties. It is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the appeals be allowed. 4.Ld. Jt.CDR on the other hand would draw our attention to the definition of maintenance, management or repair services. He would submit that the activity undertaken by the appellant is falling under maintenance or repairs of immovable properties. It is his submission that the public road as sought to be put forth by the appellant under the sovereign domain cannot be disputed but at the same time, the said public road is an immovable property. He would rely upon the Boards circular F.No.B1/6/2005-TRU dt. 27/7/2005 to subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regarding the levy of service tax on repair/renovation/widening of roads. The said circular categorically lists down the activity which would fall under the category of maintenance or repair activities and which activity would fall under the category of construction work. There is also a specific direction to the field formations that the cases may be decided accordingly as per the circular. In our considered view, the issue needs to be re-considered by the Adjudicating Authority, as there may be an element of construction and an element of asphalting, which if read with the Boards circular dt. 23/2/2009 may point towards a plausible conclusion, other than which the Adjudicating Authority has arrived at. Since this circular was not avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
