TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provide to Reliance Infrastruture, Butibori, as per the submission of the appellant they have admitted the demand and they do not contest the same therefore confirmation of demand also stand upheld - demand upheld. Construction of APMC market - Held that: - the vital submission was not considered by the adjudicating authority, therefore matter related to this demand is remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order - matter on remand. Construction of sports complex/stadium - Held that: - construction of sports complex/stadium is not for commercial activity therefore such activity does not fall under the definition of Commercial and Industrial Construction service - demand set aside. Site formation service - appellant have provided services to M/s. Indu Project - case of appellant is that they are sub contractor and main contractor has paid service tax therefore they are not liable to pay service tax - Held that: - in the Finance Act, 1994 there is no special treatment given to sub contractor or there is any exemption to sub contractor. Every person provides service is an independent service provider, his service cannot be forwarded by service recipient to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable value of ₹ 12,47,968/- under the head of Manpower Supply Service (f) The Service Tax of ₹ 4,32,600/- (Service Tax ₹ 4,20,000/-+ Ed.Cess ₹ 8,400/- + 1-I.Ed. Cess ₹ 4,200/-) on the taxable value of ₹ 35,00,000/- received as Mobilisation advance, under the head of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service . (g) The Service Tax of RRs. 3,39,300/- (Service Tax ₹ 3,30.000/-+ Ed. Cess ₹ 6600/- ) for the construction of Sports at Buldhana, under the head of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (h) The Service Tax of ₹ 44,43,824/- (Service Tax ₹ 43,14,393/- Ed. Cess ₹ 86.288/- + H. Ed. Cess ₹ 43,143/-) under the head of Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving Demolition Services for the services provided to M/s Indu Project. (i) The Service Tax of ₹ 20,11,096/- (Service Tax ₹ 19,52,521/- Ed.Cess ₹ 3,90,50/- + H.Ed. Cess ₹ 19.525/-) short paid under the head of Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving Demolition Services- for the services provided to M/s Reliance Infrastructure, Butibori. I order for appropriation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96/- on site formation service provided to Reliance infrastructure, Ld. Counsel admitted the demand. As regard the demand of ₹ 4,32,600/- on construction of APMC Market, he submits that APMC was constituted under Agriculture Market (Regulations) Act 1963 and are established for charitable purpose. As per the Circular No.80/10/2004-ST dated 17-9-2004 construction being purely for charitable purpose not taxable. The issue that APMC is for charitable purpose is settled in the judgment on Hon ble Bombay High court Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Agriculture produce Market Committee[291(ITR)419(Bom)]. As regard the demand of ₹ 3,39,300/- on construction of sports club, he submits that activity of construction of sport complex cannot be termed as Commercial and industrial construction as held in judgment in case of ECP Housing (India) Pvt Ltd [2013(30)S.T.R. 703(Tri. Mumbai)] and B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pv Ltd[2014(33)STR 77(T)]. Regarding demand of ₹ 44,43,824/- in respect of Site formation Service, he submits that appellant provided services in the capacity of sub contractor to the main contractor M/s. Indu Project who has paid service tax on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of repair and maintenance of road for the period 16-6-2005 to 26-7-2009 is set aside and if any demand arises other than this period the same stand upheld. As regard the demand of ₹ 7,51,569/- on Supply of Tangible Goods Service, ₹ 9,92,218 in respect of Goods Transport Service, ₹ 1,54,249/- on Manpower Recruitment Service and 20,00,096/- on Site Formation Service provide to Reliance Infrastruture, Butibori, as per the submission of the appellant they have admitted the demand and they do not contest the same therefore confirmation of demand also stand upheld. As regard the demand of ₹ 4,32,600/- on construction of APMC market appellant have strongly relied upon the judgment in case of Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Agriculture produce Market Committee(supra) along with Board Circular dated 17-9-2004, we find that this vital submission was not considered by the adjudicating authority, therefore matter related to this demand is remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after considering this submission. As regard the demand of ₹ 3,39,300/- in respect of construction of sports complex/stadium, this tribunal has already taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
