TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Skyline Projects, is contrary to the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court cited by the appellant - Stay granted. - ST/822/2010 - 234/2011 - Dated:- 8-3-2011 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.K. Jayasankaran, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.P. Nagendra Kumar, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. This stay application filed by M/s. Geo-Tech Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (GTCC for short), Cochin, seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the following dues confirmed against them by the Commissioner in the impugned Order-in-Original No. 04/2010/-S.T., dated 25-1-2010. (i) Service Tax of Rs. 1,36,48,226/- (ii) Ed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcial or Industrial Construction Service provided to Karnataka Public Works Department : The assessee had engaged in Commercial or Industrial Construction Service by constructing a minor port for the Karnataka Public Works Department prior to 16-6-2005 when such services in relation to construction of port or other port were exempted from Service Tax. The Commissioner rejected the claim of the assessee that the activity involved satisfied the definition of Works Contract and the port being a transport terminal was excluded under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,11,688/- under Commercial or Industrial Construction service. III. Commercial or Industrial Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, steel, etc. from the clients. 3. The learned Counsel representing the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CST, Bangalore v. Turbotech Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (18) S.T.R. 545 (Kar.)]. In support of the argument that Works Contract could not be subjected to Service Tax prior to 1-6-2007 when Section 65(105)(zzzza) relating to Works Contract was brought under the net of Service Tax. In the judgment cited, the Hon ble High Court had rejected the appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Tribunal in Final Order No. 1068/2006 dated 15-6-2006 in the case of Turbotech Precision Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-III [2006 (3) S.T.R. 765 (Tri.-Bangalore)]. The Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Tribunal in Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur [2009-TIOL-1867-CESTAT- MUM = 2010 (17) S.T.R. 121 (Tri. - Mumbai)] wherein it was held that introduction of works contract in 2007 did not make construction service not taxable earlier. Prior to 1-6-2007, the assessee had rendered a service, which squarely fell within the ambit of construction service upto 15-6-2005 and commercial or industrial construction services thereafter upto 31-3-2006. The Tribunal was not impressed with the assessee s attempt to escape tax liability for the period upto 31-3-2006 on the strength of doctrine, which was introduced on 1-6-2007 with prospective effect. 4.1 The learned JCDR also submitted that the Tribunal, in the case of Jaihin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CCE, Raipur v. BSBK Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (253) E.L.T. 522 (Tri. LB.) = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 555 (Tribunal - LB.) cited by the learned JCDR had dealt with severability of a composite contract. It was held that the ratio to the contrary laid down in Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. [2003 (155) E.L.T. 457 (Tribunal) = 2006 (3) S.T.R. 124 (Tribunal)] was wrong. This Larger Bench decision was not on the point of exigibility of Works Contract prior to 1-6-2007. We also find that the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 25,43,551/- and Education Cess of Rs. 50,872/- made by denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 18/2005-S.T., dated 7-6-2005 and 01/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006, as regards the services rendered to M/s. Skyline Projects, is contrary to the rati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
