Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ecp Housing (India) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 27 September, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II Appln. No.St/S/754/10 APPEAL No.ST/178/10 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.03/ST/2010 dated 19/02/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
ECP Housing (India) Pvt Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Nashik Appearance:
Shri.Durgesh Nadkarni, Advocate for appellant Shri.P.N. Das, Jt. CDR, for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 27/09/2011 Date of Decision : 27/09/2011 ORDER NO Per: Ashok Jindal
1. The appellants are in appeal along with stay application against the impugned order confirming the demand of service tax leviable on them under the commercial and industrial construction services. The appellant had entered into a contract for constructing a stadium known as District Sports Complex owned by District Sports Complex Committee, Jalgaon & Dhule. The contract of construction was divided into two parts, viz., one for construction of stadium and another part for construction of shopping complex around the stadium.
2. The revenue was of the view that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on whole of the activity undertaken by them viz., construction of stadium and shopping complex altogether. Therefore, service tax demand was confirmed against them. Against the said order, the appellants are in appeal before us.
3. We find that the issue involved lies in a narrow compass; therefore, we dispose of the appeal and stay application both by this order.
4. We have gone through the tender notice under which the appellants undertook the activity of construction of stadium and the shopping complex. In the said tender, the value of the shopping complex is worked out to Rs.3.51 crores and the rest is for the construction of stadium is for sports purpose. The activity of construction of sports complex/stadium cannot be termed as commercial and industrial construction. Therefore, we hold that on that part of the contract, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax but for the construction of shopping complex, the appellants are liable to pay service tax. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.15.00 lakhs at this stage within eight weeks and report compliance before the adjudicating authority.
5. As we are of the opinion that on the activity of construction of shops, the appellants are liable to pay service tax, therefore, re-quantification of demand of service tax is required so for that said limited purpose, we send back the matter to the adjudicating authority to quantify the demand of service tax leviable on the appellants as discussed herein above. For the activity of construction of shopping complex, the Commissioner shall decide the levy of penalty in accordance with the law while quantifying the liability of service tax.
6. With these observations, the appeal as well as the stay application are disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) pj 1 2