Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
India Engineers &Amp; Suppliers vs Jaipur-I on 2 July, 2018
1
S. T. Appeal No. 53281 of 2014
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. II
Date of hearing/decision: 27.06.2018
S. T. Appeal No. 53281 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-original No. JAI-EXCUS-001-COM-135-13-14 dated
24.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur)
M/s India Engineers & Suppliers Appellant
Vs.
CCE &ST, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Vivek Pandey, AR for the Respondent Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 52377/2018 Per: V. Padmanabhan:
The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. JAI-EXCUS-
001-COM-135-13-14 dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur. The period of dispute is 01.06.2007 to March, 2012.
2. The appellant was engaged in providing the services of installation, plumbing drain laying and other activities for water supply from reservoir to water storage facility. Such services were provided for State PHED department as well as Jaipur Development Authority. The Department took the view that the activities are covered by the definition of 'Works Contract Service' available under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, 2 S. T. Appeal No. 53281 of 2014 after issue of show cause notice dated 22.10.2012, the issue was adjudicated and the adjudicating authority ordered payment of Service Tax under the category of 'Works Contract Service'.
3. With the above background, we heard Sh. Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sh. Vivek Pandey, ld. AR for the Revenue.
4. Ld. Advocate submitted that the issue under dispute has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lanco Infratech Limited vs. CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad -2015 (38) STR 709 (Tri. LB). He submitted that the activities of construction of canals, pipeline for water supply irrigation etc. have been held to be not liable for Service Tax under the category of 'Works Contract Service' even if such activities are performed as per turnkey contract. Accordingly, he submitted that the demand of Service Tax merits to be set aside.
5. Ld. AR for the Revenue justified the impugned order.
6. We have considered the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Lanco Infratech Limited (supra). The issue in dispute has been considered by the Larger Bench and it has been held that such activity will not be liable to be charged to Service Tax under 'Works Contract Service'. We also note that by following the decision of the Larger Bench, the Division Bench of this Tribunal has set aside the demand for Service Tax under similar circumstances in the case of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CCE&ST, Jaipur-I -2018 (12) GSTL 32 (Tri. Del.) in which the Tribunal observed that-
"3. After hearing both the parties, it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Lanco Infratech Ltd. vs. CCE- 2015 (38) STR 709 (Tri. LB), where it was observed that:3 S. T. Appeal No. 53281 of 2014
"Construction of canals/ pipelines/ conduits to support irrigation, water supply or for sewerage disposal, when provided to Government/ Government undertakings would be for non- commercial, non-industrial purposes, even when executed under turnkey/ EPC contractual mode and would fall within the ambit of clause (b), Explanation (ii) of Section 65(105) (zzzza); and would consequently not be exigible to service tax, in view of the exclusion enacted in clause (b)".
4. By following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal, we find no reason to sustain the impugned order. The same is hereby set aside.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed".
7. By following the decision (supra), we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(Ajay Sharma) (V. Padmanabhan)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Pant