9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cks at the site of the customers for laying of internal roads and approach roads to the compound of the building on labour basis as per Section 65(105)(zzq). The Department alleged that the appellants are providing construction services during the period September 2004 to November 2005. A show-cause notice dated 31.3.2006 which was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No.71/2006-07 dated 14.2.2005 and OIO No.17/2008-ST JD dated 28.5.2008. The Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No.14/2008-CE dated 28.3.2006 and OIA No.151/2009 dated 21.4.2009 has upheld the Orders-in-Original and confirmed the service tax with interest; however, he set aside the penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inasmuch as the show-cause notice only referred to a category of 'Commercial or Industrial Service'. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the activity of laying of internal roads and approach roads to the compound of the building was undertaken by the appellant as a separate and exclusive activity and not as part of the contract for construction of a factory / building. Therefore, they are specifically covered under the exclusive clause of definition of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service'. The CBEC vide Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.2.2005 clarified that if contract for construction is a single contract, then the construction of road is not recognized as a separate activity as per the contract and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industrial building, is taxable. In the instant case, the appellants have not undertaken any such activity and their contract with their buyers was limited to laying of interlocking paver blocks and the approach roads. Therefore, the findings of the impugned order appear to be yond the scope of provisions of law and the Circular issued. We also find that the Tribunal in the cases cited above has taken the same view. The Tribunal in the case of Shilpa Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in para 7 has held that: "In this connection we find that the Board's Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27-7-05 is to the effect that - "if the contract for construction of commercial complex is a single contract and the construction of road is not recognized as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
