TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was further held that the post-harvest strategy of storage marketing etc. being done by the Mandi Samiti is exempted under serial no. 14 of Notification No. 12/2012-ST. Appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No.70073/2017[DB], Service Tax Appeal No.70729/2019[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 70196-70197/2021 - Dated:- 19-8-2021 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Rinki Arora (Advocate) Shri Aalok Arora (Advocate) for the Assessee Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER In both the Appeals the issue involved is common- whether Service tax is rightly demanded under the head-work contract services for construction of boundary wall, godown, shops, toilets, roads, sanitation, water reservoir, drinking water supply, S.T.P. (Sewage Treatment plant) etc., services carried out for Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, a Statutory Autority created by Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964 (25 of 1964) of the Uttar Pradesh State Government by the appellant/respondent are covered by Sl. No. 12 13 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 2. The details of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice Tax Department. They filed return for the period of April, 2014 to September, 2014 on 12.11.2014 (due date of filing of return 14.11.2014) and for the period October, 2014 to March, 2015 on 21.04.2015. It appeared to Revenue that the appellant have claimed exemption on the entire amount received for the services provided. It also appeared to Revenue that exemption is wrongly claimed under the circumstances as held vide Order-In-Original dated 31.03.2016 for the period 2009-10 and 2013-2014 (The demand of ₹ 1,73,08,890.00 was adjudicated). 6. This is the successive Show Cause Notice, to ascertain the demand on services provided. The Appellant was asked to provide the copies of balance sheet, Form 26AS and contract orders for the financial year 2014-2015, which were submitted by the Appellant vide letter dated 08.12.2015. The contract orders for the financial year 2014-2015, were submitted by the appellant vide letter dated 02.12.2015. Accordingly, it appeared that the amount received during financial year 2014-15, as per From 26AS is ₹ 21,87,57,624.00, as per Balance Sheet ₹ 33,44,91,080.00 and as per ST-3 return is ₹ 37,77,34,477.00. 7. On query th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S H Education Cess Involved @ 1% of Service Tax 1,12,252 Total Service Tax involved including Ed. Cess and S H Cess 1,51,61,921 Service Tax paid as per ST-3 return 0 Education Cess paid as per ST-3 return 0 S H Education Cess paid as per ST-3 return 0 Total Service Tax including Ed. Cess and S H Ed. Cess paid as per ST-3 return 0 Service Tax Demandable/Not paid 1,12,25,166 Education Cess Demandable/Not paid 2,24,503 S H Education Cess Demandable/Not paid 1,12,252 Total Service Tax Demandable including Ed. Cess and S H Ed. Cess 1,51,61,921 9. Accordingly, tax of ₹ 1,15,61,921.00 demanded, with further proposal to impose penalty. 10. The Show Cause Notice adjudicated on contest with Impugned Order-in-Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trol or effluent treatment plant, except located as a part of a factory; or a structure meant for funeral, burial or cremation of deceased; 14. Services by way of construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original works pertaining to,- (a) An airport, port or railways, including monorail or metro; (b) A single residential unit otherwise than as a part of a residential complex; (c) Low- cost houses up to a carpet area of 60 square metres per house in a housing project approved by competent authority empowered under the Scheme of Affordable Housing in Partnership framed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India; (d) Post- harvest storage infrastructure for agricultural produce including a cold storages for such purposes; or 13. From above citation we find that undisputedly the appellant have rendered construction service to the Mandi Samiti, which is a statuary authority. We, further find that the services provided to Mandi Samiti for construction services in the market yard are not commercial in nature as held by a coordinated Bench of this Tribunal in KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI Vs. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
