TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Finance Act itself and therefore, the activities undertaken by the appellant is either exempted or falls outside the purview of the taxable services. In the case on hand, there is no dispute as regards the appellant rendering services to M/s. GMR SPV in the capacity of a sub-contractor with the main contractor rendering the services of construction of roads, which included installation of Highway Traffic Management System, Toll Management System, etc., to ensure complete functioning of the road in all respects - the nature of service being Works Contract, is clearly exempt since the service is provided only towards the construction of road and not for the benefit of any of the parties. The rejection of refund is not in order - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not correct and that the claim for refund was liable to be rejected. The appellant filed a detailed reply, but however, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 57/2011 (ST-Refund) dated 30.08.2011 rejected the refund claim. The appellant agitated its grievance before the First Appellate Authority namely, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai, but however, the First Appellate Authority having not been satisfied with the contentions of the assessee, upheld the rejection of refund vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 190/2012 dated 04.09.2012. The same has resulted in this appeal before this forum. 4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. M.N. Bharathi, Learned Advocate appeared for the assessee-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eds/plaza located in the road, civil works relating to irrigation dams and so on. All these activities have been retrospectively exempted either by way of notification or by means of a specific provision in the Finance Act itself and therefore, the activities undertaken by the appellant is either exempted or falls outside the purview of the taxable services. Therefore, the impugned demands are clearly not sustainable in law and have to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 8.2 Similarly, in the case of M/s. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal (supra), the Delhi Bench has ruled as under : 5. Heard both the sides and examined the case records. We find that services provided by the appellant in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct by the main contractor for supply and installation of toll collection and traffic control equipment with the scope of work including supply, installation, integration and commissioning of complete optic fibre based Gigabit Ethernet Communication Backbone Systems and also including detailed design of associated civil infrastructure and implementation. 10. The above facts read conjointly with the findings of the co-ordinate Benches make it clear that the nature of service being Works Contract, is clearly exempt since the service is provided only towards the construction of road and not for the benefit of any of the parties. Therefore, we are of the view that the rejection of refund is not in order and consequently, we set aside the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
