Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Murari Lal Singhal vs Jaipur-I on 25 January, 2019
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-DB
COURT - IV
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/55621/2013 [DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 39-2012-13-ST dated
29/10/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise,
Jaipur-I]
Murari Lal Singhal ...Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T., Jaipur-I ...Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal & Mr. M.B. Maheshwari, CAs Present for the Respondent: Mr. G.R. Singh, DR Coram: HON'BLE MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Pronounced on : 25.01.2019 FINAL ORDER NO. 50094/2019 PER: RACHNA GUPTA The appellant herein is primarily engaged in executing the works of conservation, repair, renovation and restoration work for Archaeology and Museums Department, Government of Rajasthan and various other Government Agencies/ Departments. The Department on an intelligence gathered by the officers of DGCI, Jaipur called upon 2 ST/55621/2013 the information/ documents from the present appellant vide their office letter dated 29.10.2010 regarding the amount received by them in lieu of services rendered by them to the ADMA and Archaeology and Museum Departments including the copies of balance sheets, income tax/ VAT returns and service tax returns for the financial year 2005-06 to 2009-10. From the information gathered, the Department observed that the appellant was executing works contracts qua various activities as:
(i) Repair Maintenance of Heritage Sites (ii) Commercial and Industrial Construction (iii) Construction of Complex Services (iv) Erection, Installation and Commissioning Activities
Resultantly, a SCN No. 11540 dated 13.10.2011 was served upon the appellant denying the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.06.2003 due to the failure of the appellant to submit the documentary evidence regarding value of the material sold during the course of provision of service and thus proposing the recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 3,28,54,033/- alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate in terms of the Section 75 of the Finance Act and the proportionate penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said SCN was adjudicated by Commissioner vide Order No. 39/2012 dated 29.10.2012 vide which demand of Rs. 1,48,68,106/- (out of Rs. 3,28,54,033/-) was ordered to be recovered from the appellant alongwith the penalty under Section 78 of the Act at the rate of 25% of the aforesaid recovery. Penalty of Rs. 100 per day up to 17.04.2006 and at Rs. 200 per day w.e.f. 18.04.2006 under Section 76 of the Act alongwith the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 77 of the Act was confirmed. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3
ST/55621/2013
2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that they are primarily registered for executing work orders in relation of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services as defined under Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act and had undertaken various works of conservation/ restoration for Government of Rajasthan, construction of road/ government hospitals, milk chilling plant under various contracts between appellant and the Government. Since the Department of Archaeology and Museum Government of Rajasthan is not a commercial concern hence, the applicability of service tax on the works executed by the Department did not arise. Similarly, construction of roads even widening thereof is exempted from the definition of taxable service of commercial and industrial construction. Restoration of library and repair of central jail are also denied to be services provided to the commercial concerns but to the Government, hence are equally exempted.
2.1 With respect to construction of residential quarters for engineers and for Rajasthan Housing Board since the quarters were meant for personal use they are exempted from the definition of the construction of residential complex as defined under Section 65(91A) of the Finance Act. The case laws as relied upon are:
C.C.E., Aurangabad Vs. Mall Enterprises 2016 (41) S.T.R. 119 (CESTAT, Mumbai) P.B. Rathod Vs. C.C.E., Nashik 2015 (39) S.T.R. 650 (Cestat, Mumbai).
2.2 As such the demand still confirmed qua construction of residential quarters at Dholpur are type-II quarter, garraze etc. milk chilling plant and central jail are also impressed upon to be the non commercial concerns and such being out of the ambit of taxability as 4 ST/55621/2013 far as the repair/ restoration services are provided to them. The case laws as relied upon are:
DNS Contractor Vs. C.C.E., Delhi I 2015 (51) GST 636; 58 taxmann.com 154 (Cestat, New Delhi) Urvi Construction Vs. C.S.T., Ahmedabad 2010 (17) S.T.R. 302 (Cestat, Ahmedabad).
2.3 It is further submitted that for few of the constructions the appellant was merely a sub contractor and the main contractor was GEA Energy. The tax liability to the extent of Rs. 1,29,43,403/-
stands discharged by the main contractor hence the confirmation of demand of service tax upon the sub contractor is not sustainable which being a case of double taxation. The case laws as relied upon are:
Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Mumbai - II 2016 (42) S.T.R. 118 (Cestat, Mumbai), Madhukar Mittal Vs. C.C.e., Panchkula 2015 (40) S.T.R. 969 (Cestat, Delhi) C.S.T., Mumbai - II Vs. Skypack Service Specilaities Ltd. 2015 (37) S.T.R. 281 (Cestat, Mumbai).
2.4 It is further submitted that cum-tax benefit has not been given to the appellant. The findings of the Adjudicating Authority below are therefore prayed to be set aside. Finally impressing upon that there is no apparent suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with an intention to evade the payment of tax as such the Department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. The demand beyond a normal period of one year from the date of SCN is liable to be set aside on this score itself. The case laws as relied upon are:
Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Mumbai - I 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1159 (Cestat, Mumbai), 5 ST/55621/2013 C.C.E. Mumbai Vs. Jubilant Enpro (P) Ktd 2014 (43) G.S.T. 236; (2013) 38 taxmann.com 297 (Cestat, Mumbai), Ganta Ramanaiah Naidu Vs. Commissioner 2015 (39) S.T.R. 835 (Cestat, Bangalore).
For the same reason there arises no cause for the imposition of penalty. Order under challenge is therefore prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed.
3. While rebutting these arguments it is submitted by Ld. DR that Commissioner has undertaken a meticulous exercise of short listing all the work contracts/orders being executed by the appellant and has decided the taxability/ non taxability respectively thereof. The Order contains reasonable explanation for the decision so arrived. There appears no infirmity in the findings. As far as the denial of abatment Notification No. 12 of 2003 is concerned, it is very much clear from the Order itself that despite repeated demands the appellant has failed to provide the documents proving the value of goods involved in their respective work contract/ order. The Commissioner has been clear enough that in absence of those documents the benefit of said Notification cannot be extended to the appellant. Justifying the said Order Appeal is prayed to be dismissed.
4. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion as follows:
Appellant has undertaken following activities:
(a) Conservation and restoration work done for Ghat ki Guni, Jaipur
(b) Construction of Roads, culvert and drain in the stone park
(c) Construction of individual houses constructed for Rajasthan Housing Board 6 ST/55621/2013
(d) Construction of quarters at DCCPP, Dholpur
(e) Construction of quarters for officers of RRVUNL
(f) Construction Milk Chilling unit for dairy under scheme of Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture
(g) Sub- contractor work for GEA Energy and others To adjudicate upon the activity No. (a) and (b), the definition of Commercial and Industrial Construction Services as defined under Section 65(25B) is relevant as under:
"Section 65(25b) defines „commercial and industrial construction service‟ as under-
"commercial and industrial construction service" means-
(a) Construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or
(b) Construction of pipeline or conduit; or
(c) Completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tilling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services, in relation to building or civil structure; or
(d) Repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, building or civil structure, pipeline or conduit;
Which Is -
i) Used, or to be used, primarily for; or
ii) Occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with; or
iii) Engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in commerce or industry or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include such services provided in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams."
Bare perusal makes it clear that for any service to be taxable under Section 65(25B) it has to be the work which is intended for commerce or industry. The restoration of Ghat ki Guni is observed, from record, to be a work order awarded to the appellant by Amber Development and Management Authority, Jaipur vide work order dated 03.09.2009. The said work was to be executed for and on behalf of the Government and under the supervision of Executive 7 ST/55621/2013 Engineer. Even permit was to be obtained from Mining Department, Government of Rajasthan before the stipulated date of commencement of the work order. Thus, apparently the work is not intended for industry or commerce and as such is out of the ambit of taxable commercial and industrial services. Similar is the work for restoration and conservation of Prachin Mahal, Talab-e-Shahi, Dholpur and Bari Kila, Dholpur, etc. The adjudicating authority below has dropped the demand of all such restoration and conservation work under the mandate and supervision of Government of Rajasthan except for the conservation and restoration of Ghat ki Guni, Jaipur.
5. We observe that the later work (Ghat ki Guni) is held taxable for the reason that it does not fall within the definition of building but the perusal of definition under Section 65(25B) makes it clear that the construction meant not only for building but for any other civil structure or a part thereof. There is no denial on the part of the Department for Ghat ki Guni to be at least a civil structure which otherwise is apparent from the photographs also as are placed on record by the appellant. Resultantly, confirmation of the tax liability as far as the conservation and restoration of Ghat ki Guni is not sustainable. The tax liability equally requires to be dropped as has been dropped by Commissioner with respect to other conservation and restoration sites as mentioned in the Order under challenge itself. Hence the findings qua taxability of the work with respect to Ghat ki Guni are hereby set aside.
6. With respect to the several work orders/ contracts executed with respect to construction, widening, renovation or maintenance of 8 ST/55621/2013 the road it is observed from the above definition of Section 65(25B) itself that the same are excluded from the taxability thereof. Though w.e.f. 01.07.2012 the word "road for use by general public" has been incorporated in the aforesaid provision but to our opinion the said insertion is not affecting the execution of the work contracts/ orders executed by the appellant qua various roads. We draw our support from the meaning of general public as given in following Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012:
"General public means the body of people at large sufficiently defined by some common quality of public or impersonal nature."
The National Road Traffic Act, 1996 defines public road as :
"public road means any road, street or thoroughfare or any other place (whether a thoroughfare or not) which is commonly used by the public or ay section thereof or to which the public or any section thereof has a right of access and includes -
(a) The verge of any such road, street or
thoroughfare;
(b) Any bridge, ferry or drift traversed by any such
road, street or thoroughfare, and
(c) Any other work or object forming part of or
connected with or belonging to such road,
street or thoroughfare;"
Perusal clarifies that roads/ drains/ pipelines as executed by the appellant are the roads for use by general public which fall under exclusion part of the definition of Commercial and Industrial Construction.
6.1 We observe that the adjudicating authority below has held few of the roads /drain/pipeline construction as taxable and remaining others as non taxable but the distinction as created in these roads/ drains/ pipelines to be public or non public is opined incorrect in view of all of those qualifying the above definition of general public/ public roads. The findings of the Commissioner confirming tax liability for 9 ST/55621/2013 conservation and restoration work done for construction of roads, culverts and drain in the Stone Park are therefore hereby set aside.
7. Now coming to activities at serial no. (c), (d) & (e) above:
We observed that the appellant has constructed individual houses for Rajasthan Housing Board, quarters at DCCPP, Dholpur and quarters for officers of RRVUNN. From the work orders executed in this respect it is apparent that these quarters were got constructed by the respective Government Departments for being used for their own employees/ officers. The taxable residential complex is defined under Section 65(91A) as follows:
"6[(91a) "residential complex" means any complex comprising of -
(i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units;
(ii) a common area; and
(iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as part, lift, parking space, community hall, common water supply or effluent treatment system, located within a premises and the layout of such premises is approved by an authority under any law for the time being in force, but does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person.
Explanation - for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause,
(a) "personal use" includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration "
(b) "residential unit" means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence;
7.1 The perusal of this definition makes it clear that the complex which is constructed with an intention for personal use as residence 10 ST/55621/2013 by a person who is directly engaging any other person for designing / planning of layout and the construction of such complex out of the ambit of such construction and thus from taxability. We draw our support from the case of C.C.E., Aurangabad Vs. Mall Enterprises 2016 (41) S.T.R. 119 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein it was held that not only residential complex is designed or laid out by another person are excluded from the definition but also the ones intended for personal use of such person i.e. the owner of the complex. In another case titled as Nithesh Estates Limited Vs. C.C.E., Bangalore 2015 (40) STR 815 wherein it was held that the construction of residential complex for ITC (in that case) intended to provide accommodation built for own employees, it was held that activity was covered by definition of personal use in explanation to Section 65(91A) of Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the assessee‟s activity falls under exclusion of that Section and as such is excluded from levy of service tax.
7.2 In the present case, the quarters/ residential complexes were got constructed by the appellant for three different Departments of Government of Rajasthan for being used as accommodation for their own employees, the same amounts to „personal use‟. The confirmation of demand qua these services by the Commissioner is therefore not sustainable, accordingly is set aside.
8. For the activity at serial no. (f) above:
We observe that though the milk chilling plant was run by Rajasthan State Government but the fact remains is that the plant was selling milk on commercial basis against the profit. In view of said apparent fact, it cannot be held that the State Government was discharging some sovereign function and as such exemption from 11 ST/55621/2013 taxability is not available because irrespective of authority been owned by Government if the work/ activity of this authority is intended for business or commerce, it becomes taxable. We are of the opinion that adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed this demand.
9. Coming to final activity at serial no. (g) above:
Liability of appellant as sub contractor for GEA Energy and other works Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RICO) awarded civil work to GEA Energy System India Ltd. Said GEA sub contracted with the appellant as far as the work for earthing, insulation, etc. is concerned vide their letter dated 17.04.2006. Though it is the appellant‟s case that GEA being the main contractor has discharged the service tax liability towards the entire work order including the payment liability of impugned Dholpur project and a letter dated 26.06.2008 of GEA Energy (BGR Energy) is being impressed upon. But perusal of the letter is not explanatory for the entire scope of work awarded to the appellant as sub contractor vide GEA Energy letter dated 17.04.2006. Perusal of Clause 5 of the said letter / work order shows that it speaks about the liability of sub contractor/ appellant towards taxes and duties.
The clause reads as follows:
"The contractor shall administer and pay all taxes levies etc. which are applicable to the contactor under applicable laws for the performance of its obligations under this work order. Unit rates specified are inclusive of all taxes and duties."
This clause from the letter of M/s GEA dated 26.06.2008 makes it clear that the payment as was agreed included tax and duties. It is clear that on the amount received (which was inclusive of taxes) the liability has already been discharged. It becomes clear that as a sub 12 ST/55621/2013 contractor, the appellant has not received any other amount than the amount which already was inclusive of tax. The liability thereupon has already been discharged by the main contractor i.e. M/s GEA. Hence, the appellant sub contractor has wrongly been held liable by the Commissioner qua such payment which stands already made by the main contractor. We draw our support from the case DNS Contractor Vs. C.C.E., Delhi 2015 (51) G.S.T. 636 wherein it was held that where the principal contractor had paid service tax on entire consideration, same demand cannot be enforced on sub contractor. Such demand is barred by the principle of revenue neutrality. The Order to that extent is also therefore set aside.
10. The another line of argument is the entitlement to abetment:
Appellant on this issue has submitted that they have executed the works of Erection, Commissioning and Installation which are work contracts in nature as they simultaneously have provided the material used for the said execution. It is impressed upon that the appellants in the given circumstances were entitled for abetment under Notification No. 1/2006 dated 01.03.2006 which has wrongly been denied by the adjudicating authority below. The DR on the other hand, has submitted that Commissioner has given valid reasons about the conditions of the said Notification to not have been fulfilled as a ground for declining the said benefit. Resultantly, there is no error apparent in those findings.
10.1 After hearing both the parties on this issue we observe that the benefit of the abetment Notification or even of composition scheme in respect of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service 13 ST/55621/2013 or Construction of Complex Service and Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service is available subject to the following conditions:
(i) Gross amount charged includes the value of goods and materials supplied or provided or used by the provider for the construction service.
(ii) The credit of duty paid on inputs or capital gods has not been taken under provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
(v) The benefit of the Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 has also not been availed.
It is perused rather from the SCN itself that three of the conditions stands duly complied with by the appellant. The benefit thereof has still been denied for the following two reasons:
(a) Non-fulfillment of the condition that assessee was required to exercise such option prior to payment of service tax in respect of the said work contract and the option so exercised shall be applicable for the entire work contact till the completion thereof.
(b) The documentary proof about value of goods and materials provided by the service provider to the recipient were not produced by the appellant.
10.2 As far as the first condition of rejection is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same is merely procedural in nature and that procedure should not be construed as mandatory, it is always sub- servient to and is in aid to justice. Procedure should be handmade and not the mistress of legal justice. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant; not a obstruction but an aid to justice. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sambhaji Vs. Gangabai 2009 14 ST/55621/2013 (240) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) has held that a procedural prescription is a lubricant and not a resistant in the administration of justice. Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in a prior decision in the case of Rajabuland Sugar Company Ltd. Vs. Municipal Board Rampur AIR 1965 Supreme Court 895 has held that the question whether a particular provision is mandatory cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and it would depend upon the facts of each case. For that purpose, the objective of the statute in making out the provision is the determining factor. Central Board of Excise & Customs clearly says that merely procedural lapses be not allowed to defeat the modvat credit benefit, if substantive conditions about payment of duty and user of goods in manufacture of end product in factory are fulfilled. It was held that however substantial benefit should not be denied for the procedural valuation if the substantial liability has been complied with.
10.3 In view of the admitted facts as mentioned above there is sufficient compliance by the appellant qua the substantial liability as laid in the Notification relied upon is concerned. Mere lack of sending an intimation is a procedure which is mere directry. Denying the substantial benefit to the appellant on merely a procedural lapse is unjustified on the part of the adjudicating authority below. In the present case, it is not the contention of the Department that the option for availing the benefit of said Notification has ever been withdrawn prior the completion of the work contract. Resultantly, the absence of intimating the option prior payment of the service tax qua the said work contract is in any way not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, cannot be held to be a substantive loss but a mere procedural lapse. 15
ST/55621/2013 10.4 As far as the second ground of declining the benefit of the impugned Notification is concerned, we are of the opinion that ground is absolutely wrong at its face. The Order under challenge itself contains a meticulous calculation about each and every work order / work contract executed by the appellant and the precise amount involved therein. Had no documents been provided to the authorities below, such meticulous calculation would not have been possible. This ground of rejection is therefore held to be the result of pre-decided mind of the adjudicating authority below to confirm the proposed demand. As a result of this discussion, both the grounds of denying benefit of the impugned Notification are held apparently wrong, in the view of Department‟s own admission for the contract executed by appellant to be a work contract. Thus, the findings of adjudication authority in this respect are also set aside.
11. Appellant‟s another liability as sub contractor only w.r.t. construction of roads:
It is submitted by the appellant that the appellant‟s were awarded sub contractor by GEA Energy with respect to the construction of roads in the plant or as well as on the public land the entire tax liability was the case of the appellant that the requisite tax liability qua the sub contractor stands included in the tax liability as discharged by GEA Energy for the entire work including the sub contractor of the award to the appellant. It is impressed upon that once the tax has been collected, the subsequent collection of the same tax will amount to double taxation. Hence, adjudicating authority has committed an error while still confirming the demand from appellant the sub contractor. Per contra, Ld. DR has submitted that sub contractor is in fact a service provider to the main 16 ST/55621/2013 contractor and as per the settled liability for the purpose it is always the liability of the provider to pay tax unless and until it is so expressly excluded by the statute itself. Admittedly, appellant is not the case of exclusion. Liability upon him as sub contractor has rightly been confirmed.
11.1 From the record i.e. scrutiny of contract it is perused that cement and steel had been supplied by M/s GEA Energy Systems only under all the work Orders. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the liability of appellant as sub contractor is same as the liability of the main contractor which is mentioned to have been discharged for the entire contract for the purpose. In the given circumstances, for the impugned contract, the appellant as sub contractor cannot be held to have stepped into the shoes of the main contractor. Resultantly, any discharge of tax liability by the main contractor cannot be held as the discharge of the liability of sub contractor. The discharge of liability qua contractor and sub contractor has way back been clarified by the Department itself vide their CBEC Circular No. 96/7/2007 - ST dated 23.08.2007 vide which it was clarified that sub contractor is essentially a favourable service provider and is liable to pay service tax. The fact that services provided by such sub contractor are used by the main service provider for completion of his work does not in any way alter the fact of provision of taxable service by a sub contractor. Services provided by sub contractor are in the nature of input services.
Service tax is therefore leviable on any taxable service provided whether or not the services are provided by a person in his capacity as a sub contractor or whether or not such services are used as input services. The fact that a given taxable service is intended for use as 17 ST/55621/2013 an input service by another service provider does not alter the taxability of the service provider. Such proposition finds support from the basic rule of cenvat credit and service of a sub contractor may be input service provided for a contractor if there is integrity between the services. Thus tax paid by a sub contactor may not be denied to be set off against the ultimate service tax liability of the contracts if the contractor is made liable to service tax for the same transaction, though the exchequer cannot be enriched on account of double taxation. Thus, liability of sub contractor to pay tax depends on the contract between him and main contractor and thus varies from case to case and even from contract to contract. The adjudicating authority has also relied upon the said Circular. Hence we do not find any error in the findings qua this particular issue. Order to this extent is upheld.
12. Cum-tax benefit:
We observe that appellant herein is engaged in constructing residential complexes and commercial or industrial complexes and has been held eligible for the benefit of abetment vide Notification No. 01/2006. We are of the opinion that in view of provision of Section 67(2) of Finance Act, 1994 cum-tax benefit should be made available to the appellant. We draw our support from the case Madhukar Mittal Vs. C.C.E., Panchkula 2015 (40) S.T.R. 969. In another case titled as Professional Couriers Vs. C.S.T., Mumbai 2013 (32) S.T.R. 348 it is held that when the appellant has not collected service tax from the recipient of services, the entire consideration received shall be treated as cum-tax. Resultantly, the appellant is held entitled to cum-tax benefit.
13. Finally coming to the issue of imposition of penalties: 18
ST/55621/2013 In view of the entire above discussion where most of the findings of the adjudicating authority against the appellant have been set aside, it stands clarified that there was no deliberate defiance of legal provision nor any non compliance thereof as has been noticed qua the appellant and as is otherwise alleged in the SCN. The appellant is rather observed to be under bonafide belief of being entitled under the abetment Notification and of not been liable being a sub contractor and also about the work to have been excluded being not for commerce and thus is not liable to pay the tax. In the given circumstances, when there is no malafide intent proved or is not even apparent to evade tax, the penalties under Section 76 and 78 are not at all sustainable. Also, beyond, 10.05.2008 penalties under both the Sections i.e. Section 76 & 78 cannot co-exist due to the amendment in Section 78. We draw our support from the following case laws:
C.C.E., Puduchery Commissionarate Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal 2014 (44) G.S.T. 182; 43 taxmann.com 13; 35 S.T.R. 32 (Madras), Bharti Tele Ventures Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Pune-III 2014 (33) S.T.R. 86 (Cestat, Mumbai), C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. Patiala Marketing Services (P) Ltd.
2016 53 G.S.T. 412 (Cestat, New Delhi), Pravin N. Shah Vs. Cestat 2014 (305) E.L.T. 480 (Gujarat), Practical Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. 2016 (41) S.T.R. 683 (Tribunal, Mumbai)
14. As a result of entire above discussion, it is held that Commissioner has been wrong while confirming the proposed demands alongwith interest and the penalties except for the demand confirmed qua construction services for milk chilling plant and for the demand qua work contracts of construction as sub contractor where 19 ST/55621/2013 the construction material has been provided by the main contractor. The interest and penalties stand proportionately reduced.
15. As a result of entire above discussion, the Appeal in hand is partly allowed.
[Pronounced in the open Court on 25.01.2019] (C.L. MAHAR) (RACHNA GUPTA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) D.J.