TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be considered as part of construction of building of civil structure or part thereof. Thus, appellant is eligible for credit on service tax paid - appellant not liable to pay interest on the credit which was reversed before utilization as held in the case Bill Forge (P) Ltd 2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – appeal disposed off – decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/22333/2015 - FINAL ORDER No. A/30264/2016 - Dated:- 1-4-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial). Shri G. Prahlad, Authorised representative for the Appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Authorised representative for the Respondent. ORDER: [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The appellant M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. was served with a sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s showing the bill period 26/01/2008 to 31/01/2013 relating to works contract service for laying of pipe works in the factory for supply of water to the raw material plant. He contended that laying pipe line or conduit is distinct and different from construction of a building or civil structure or part thereof. That w.e.f. 01/04/2011, the definition of input services excludes services related to construction of a building or civil structure or part thereof and not with regard to input services related to construction of pipeline or conduit. To support his arguments, he referred to the definition of input services w.e.f. 01/04/2011 and the definition of construction service under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was reversed by the appellant before utilisation, the learned AR submitted that the demand is legal and proper. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the appeal records. 6. The invoice No.01/01 dated 09/02/2013 shows the description of service as works contract service. The description of the work mentioned in the invoice is underground and over ground pipe works. The credit availed is ₹ 13,84799/-. The credit has been denied on the ground that the definition of input service w.e.f. 01/04/2011 excludes the services availed for construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the works of laying of pipes comes with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the specified services; It is the case of appellant that the exclusion portion of the definition excludes only those services specified in sub-clause (p), (zn), (zzl), (zzm), (zzp), (zzzh) and (zzzza) of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, insofar as they relate to:- (a) construction of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods 7. The main argument of the appellant is that the works contract service relating to laying/erection of underground / over ground pipe line is not included in the exclusion portion of the definition of input service. According to him, the services of construction of a building or a civil structure or a par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustry. 9. If one goes through the above provisions, the contention of the appellant that construction of a pipeline or conduit is distinct from the service of construction of a building or a civil structure or part thereof is not without merits. Wherever the legislature wanted to include the construction of a pipeline or conduit, it has been specifically mentioned separately in the definition. This itself would indicate that erection/construction of pipeline or conduit cannot be considered as part of construction of building of civil structure or part thereof. 10. The Authority of Advance Ruling, New Delhi in GSPL India Transco Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyse similar issue. The observations in the said decision is reproduced as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract of a building or civil structure. 11. In the said judgment, the credit availed of service tax paid on construction services for laying pipeline was held to be admissible. A plain reading of the definitions noticed above makes it sufficiently clear that laying of pipeline is different from construction of building or civil structure. Undisputedly, in the present case, the service tax was paid on works contract for laying pipe over the ground and under to supply water to the raw material plant. Form the above discussions, I am able to hold that appellant is eligible for credit on service tax paid on works contract services relating to erection / construction of underground pipe and over ground pipelines for supply of water to raw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
