TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the main contractor has adjusted the amount of service tax from the bill(s) of the Appellant subcontractor. Thus, the Appellant is entitled to set-off of the tax deposited by the main contractor and admittedly adjusted from their bills. Also the Appellant is entitled to pay tax under the composition scheme and the same cannot be denied for having not opted for. Construction of the reservoirs, CNG stations and fire stations - HELD THAT:- The activity of construction of fire stations is of non-commercial nature and hence the same is held as exempt. So far the activity of construction of reservoirs and CNG stations is concerned, the demand is bad for the period prior to 01.06.2007. After 01.06.2007, Appellant shall be entitled to aba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubcontractor. This is the second round of litigation. 2. In the first round of Appeal, the matter came up before the Tribunal, in cross appeals, remanded the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for the denovo proceedings, as the Original Authority had dropped certain parts of demand and also confirmed certain portions of demand. 3. The Brief facts are that the Appellant is a works contractor and mainly engages in laying of optical fibre lines, gas pipelines for GAIL, construction of reservoir, etc., either as main contractor or subcontractor. They were not paying service tax on these activities as all these activities are either for government authority or for Government Company. In the 2nd round, the demand has been confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after under Works Contract. In view of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dt.24.05.2010, the same is not liable to service tax and the matter is no longer res integra in view of the judgment in the case of HM Satyanarayan vs CCE, Nagpur [2016 (42) STR 397 (Tri-Mumbai) and CCE, Jaipur-II vs Rishab Telelinks [2017 (49) STR 71 (Tri-Delhi)]. They have also submitted that WCS provided to railways is outside the definition of WCS itself, and therefore, not liable to service tax. Further, denial of abatement of 67% as provided under Notification No.01/2006 dt.01.03.2006 on the grounds that they have received certain free material, is not correct and is also against the settled legal position, in view of the following judgments: a) Bhayana Builders P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38/- c) Demand under Business Auxiliary service Rs.96,458/- (not disputed) d) Site preparation service Rs.66,327/- (not disputed) e) Laying of Optical Fiber Cables Rs.4,39,514/- (not disputed) 10. The learned AR for revenue relies on the impugned order. 11. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, the Counsel for the Appellant has not contested the demand for Rs.66,327/- for the period 2005-06 under Site Formation and Clearance service on the ground that the said amount of taxes were already paid and they are not disputing it. So far the demand of Rs.4,39,514/- for laying of optical fibre cables, the same is not being contested as the Appellant has collected the tax and deposited the same. 12. So far the work of lay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
