TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y engaged in providing public services which are not in the nature of services for commerce or industry, of course, in some of the project there may be some element of commercial or industrial services as well. Further, a perusal of contract, which is also not disputed by the Revenue indicates that these are in the nature of composite work contract which included supply of material along with the services. This issue has been decided by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] judgement wherein it is held that the composite work contract is not chargeable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007. It has also been held that if demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... government bodies and organisation, for which they are duly registered with the Department and discharging service tax liability accordingly. During the course of their business activities they undertook various activities such as design, engineering, supply of equipments/goods, fabrication, civil construction, erection, commissioning, installation, operation and maintenance of the STP/ETP during relevant period for the government and other private entities viz: (a) Delhi Jal Board, Akshardham; (b) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon; (c) Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad; (d) U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow; and (e) Karnataka Industrial Area Developm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.6.2007. It is also stated that confirmation of demand in this case is not sustainable under CICS from the period 1.6.2007 as well in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Larsen Toubro (supra), as the demand is not raised against the work contract service . Therefore, the confirmation of demand for the period from 1.6.2007 also cannot be sustained on account of following decisions of this Tribunal: (i) URC Construction Private Limited Vs. Commissioner 2017-TIOL-1214-CESTAT-MAD; (ii) Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar Vs. Commissioner 2017-TIOL-3230-CESTAT-MUM; (iii) Commissioner Vs. MDD Medical Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. Final Order No. 57267/2017 dated 16.10.2017; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act. The appellant has submitted certificate from agencies involved in execution of these projects such as, Delhi Jal Board, Akashardham, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, U.P. Jal Nigam Board. These organisations are generally engaged in providing public services which are not in the nature of services for commerce or industry, of course, in some of the project there may be some element of commercial or industrial services as well. Further, a perusal of contract, which is also not disputed by the Revenue indicates that these are in the nature of composite work contract which included supply of material along with the services. This issue has been decided by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute to be composite contracts for supply of both goods and services. 8. We note that the findings of the adjudicating authority do accept that supply of goods were involved in the contracts and that he was merely sceptical that VAT liability had been discharged on the goods supplied in the contract; whether VAT liability was discharged on the goods or not is irrelevant in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in re Larsen Toubro and Ors. We, therefore, have to merely determine the scope of taxability of works contract service rendered before and after 1st June, 2007 under the Finance Act, 1994. 9. The Hon ble Supreme Court in re Larsen Toubro Ors. has decided th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct service , no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007. 11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering works contract service . On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing works contract service had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than commercial or industrial construction ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
