Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur Versus M/s. PD Agrawal Contractors)

2016 (10) TMI 745 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Levy of service tax - scope of commercial and industrial construction which came into effect from 10.9.2004 - scope of construction of complex services which came into effect from 16.6.2005 - construction work for government and PSUs. - Held that: - the work listed out at S. No. a and b is for the construction of staff quarters and Hostel for the staff of Ministry of Defence as well as Government of Chhattisgarh. It is to be noted that Government has given the permission to respondent to carry o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h. - In view of CBEC circular dated 17-9-2004, the service outside the ambit of service tax. - All the three constructions outside the ambit of service tax - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No. 788 of 2010 - ORDER NO. 53560/2016 - Dated:- 23-8-2016 - Mr S K Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms Suchitra Sharma, AR for the Appellants Shri M P Singh,Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan (for the Bench): The pre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tigation against the respondent and issued show cause notice dated 19.1.2009 for demand of service tax to the tune of about ₹ 3.02 crores(approx.) along with other penalty proposals. The notice was decided by the learned Commissioner vide the impugned order in which he dropped the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice on the ground that levy of service tax is not attracted on the construction services provided by the respondent. Revenue is in appeal against that part of the ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and 2 above, according to the challenge by the Revenue, is liable to payment of Service Tax on the ground that these services are covered by construction of complex services. The work at Sl.No. 3 is claimed to be covered under commercial or industrial construction services. 4. The respondent in his cross objections refuted all three. According to the respondent the work at Sl. No. 1 and 2 will not be covered under construction of complex services inasmuch as the construction is for personal use .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

views. 5. We have heard Smt. Suchitra Sharma, learned AR appearing for the Revenue as well as Shri M P Singh, learned Advocate for the respondent. 6. We find that the work listed out at S. No. 1 and 2 is for the construction of staff quarters and Hostel for the staff of Ministry of Defence as well as Government of Chhattisgarh. It is to be noted that Government has given the permission to respondent to carry out the construction work but nature of use of the building on completion is clearly for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version