SERVICE TAX

Dy Conservator Of Forest And Dy Field Director Vs CCE

ST - Assessee comes under Department of Forests, Govt. of Rajasthan and exercised the jurisdiction and control over Tiger Project, Ranthambore - Revenue noticed that assessee was collecting certain amounts from tourists for organizing or arranging tours into forests on Vehicles which were allowed on specified routes - Out of the amounts so collected, a certain portion was paid to vehicle owners towards rent of vehicle and balance was retained - Revenue views that the activity of assessee falls within definition of Tour Operator as per Section 65(115) of FA, 1994 - Amount recovered from tourists are credited to account of State Govt. after reimbursing the vehicle owners towards rent payable for such vehicles - Said activities of assessee are to be seen in the context of Wilde Life Protection Act as well as Rules - Forest Department has mandatory duty to protect the environment and to safeguard forests and wild life - Amounts recovered by them towards issue of entry permits as well as vehicles which have also been credited to State Treasury are to be considered in nature of fee or amount collected as per the provisions of relevant statute for performance of statutory functions - This cannot be considered as consideration for purposes of organizing tour - Department is not justified in demanding Service Tax on the amounts collected by assessee - Impugned order set-aside: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1903-CESTAT-DEL

Gupta Construction Company Vs CCE

ST - Assessee engaged in various activities in pursuance of contracts entered into with their clients - Dispute is mainly with reference to work carried out by them regarding strengthening/replacing/realigning the security fence in Indo-Pakistan International Border; repair and maintenance of roads inside Thermal Power Station, Suratgarh; Construction of residential accommodation for Rajasthan State Police; certain other misc. work like False ceiling in conference rooms of military station headquarters - Regarding service tax liability on activities of strengthening/replacing/realigning the security fencing in international border, said liability cannot be sustained - Admittedly, the work carried out by assessee in this regard is of composite nature involving supply of material alongwith labour - Services rendered by assessee were for non-commercial activity and clearly excluded from works contract service - Such service cannot be brought under any other category of tax entry for service tax - Service tax liability on replacement/ strengthening of such wire fence cannot be sustained under any tax category - Regarding repair and maintenance of road in thermal power station, service tax liability was confirmed only on the ground that said road was not a public road - Following the ratio of Tribunal in Shilpa Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-1132-CESTAT-AHM no Service Tax liability can be confirmed for such activity on assessee - Tribunal in said case held that when construction is carried out through a single contract though the road work is also mentioned therein the same cannot be taxed separately as two separate activities - Assessee is not liable to service tax.

Original authority confirmed service tax liability under construction of residential complex - Such construction of residential accommodation for own use is not liable to be taxed - This position has been clarified by Tribunal in Khurana Engineering Ltd. 2010-TIOL-1712-CESTAT-AHM and later followed in many cases - In said case, the Tribunal held that construction of employees quarters for Income Tax Department though done through CPWD and carried out by assessee contractor cannot be taxed as construction of residential complex - Following the said ratio, construction of residential accommodation for use by Police Department for their personnel is excluded from taxable activities under construction of complex service - A small amount of service tax was confirmed for construction of false ceiling in conference room of military station head quarters - Said structure is a non-commercial one and works contracts for such non commercial building is excluded for service tax - Impugned order cannot be sustained: CESTAT - Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-1902-CESTAT-MAD

National Aviation Company Of India Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Assessee engaged in business of providing services in relation to transport of goods and passengers by airport services - Assessees were not maintaining separate accounts in respect of CENVAT credit where both taxable and non-taxable services are provided - Adjudicating authority has held that assessee is entitled to utilize CENVAT credit to the extent of 20% and that it has not disputed that they had utilized credit more than the permissible limit - The adjudicating authority has also observed that "the credits that were not utilized as on 31.3.2005 will not lapse and the assessee can utilize the CENVAT credit towards future payment of service tax" - Having reached such a conclusion the adjudicating authority then takes a U turn holds that such utilization is on the restrictions imposed under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules as was in force during the material time - However, a perusal of Rule 6(3)(c) indicates that there is no such restriction that 20% credit earned should be utilized within a particular period - This being so, no sustenance found in the decision of adjudicating authority - Impugned order cannot sustain, same is set aside - Revenue has filed miscellaneous application for change of cause title from Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai to The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate consequent upon the introduction of GST and the resultant change in jurisdiction - Miscellaneous application allowed for change of cause title and direct the Registry to amend the cause title accordingly: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT