9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, DR PER: S.K. MOHANTY This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur. 2. In this case, the appellant had constructed approach and internal road for various parties namely, M/s. Ericson India Pvt. Ltd. Kukas, Jaipur, Textile Weaving Park Ltd., Shree Cement Ltd. Beawar and Rajasthan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since there is no specific mention about public or private road in the definition clause, the roads constructed by the appellant for different organization s should be eligible for the exclusion provided under the said definition and no Service Tax demand can be confirmed under such taxable category of service. 4. On the other hand, the Id. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, pipeline or conduit, which is - (i) Used, or to be used, primarily for; o r (ii) Occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with; or (iii) Engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in, Commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include such services provided in respect of roads, airports railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels an dams; 7. On perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Tax. Since there is no ambiguity in plain reading of the definition and in view of the admitted fact that the appellant had constructed roads for different commercial entities/organization, the benefit of the exclusion provided in the definition clause should be available to it. 8. Therefore, the impugned order, confirming the Service Tax demand against the appellant will not stand for jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
