TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tower - It can be seen from N/N. 25/2007-ST dated 22.05.2007 provides that activities pertaining to construction of Port are exempted by the above mentioned exemption notification. Since the construction of boundary wall and tower within the port area are very much part of the port area therefore, the provisions of Notification No. 25/2007-ST dated 22.05.2007 will certainly be applicable to the appellant being sub-contractor of the main contractor and therefore appellant shall not be liable to pay any service tax on such activity. As regards to the construction activity undertaken by the appellant for M/s. Dhenu Developers, the same was for construction of drainage pipe line for Rajkot Municipal Corporation - Hon ble Supreme Court in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial records on 07.09.2009, for the period April 2007 to March 2009, it was observed by the department that the appellant has not paid service tax on the services rendered by them to the main contractors. The details of these contracts are as follows:- No. Name of Main Contractor Invoice No. Date Value as per Invoice (Rs.) Service Tax 12.36% (Rs.) 1 M/s. K.P. Buildcon R/20/22-11-2008 For Construction Wall at Pipavav Port 11,36,680- 1,40,494 2 M/s. K.P. Buildcon R/33/21-3-2009 For Civil Work for Tower Erection 5,12,947/- 6,340/- 3 Dhenu Developer R/17/27-11-2008 For Construction of Drainage (RMC Project) Pipeline 27,20,916/- 3,36,305/- 4 Dhenu Developer R/13/3-7-2007 For Construction of Drainage (RMC Project) Pipeline 22,05,154/- 2,72,557/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this argument, the appellant has contended that no service tax liability arises on them and therefore, the impugned order-in-appeal is legally not sustainable. The learned advocate has relied upon the following decisions on the issue:- (a) 2010 (19) STR 259 (Tri-Bang) - Nagarjuna Construction Co Limited vs. CCE (b) 2008 (12) STR 363 (Tri.-Chennai) - Indian Hume Pipe Co Limited vs. CCE - upheld by Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 2015 (40) STR 214 (Mad)- CCE vs. Indian Hume Pipes Co Ltd, and further upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (44) STR J71 (SC)-Commissioner vs. India Hume Pipes Co Limited. 3. The learned advocate has also drawn our attention to the fact that the impugned show cause notice has been issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, and services provided in relation to the execution of works contract, referred to in sub-clause (zzzza) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, provided to any person by any other person in relation to construction of port or other port, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the Finance Act. Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, it is hereby declared that, - (i) commercial or industrial construction service or services provided in relation to the execution of works contract in relation to construction of port or other port shall not include services of completion and finishing, repair, alteration, renovation, restoration, maintenance or repair provided in relation to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
