URC CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM
LAWS(CE)-2015-6-10
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 12,2015

Urc Construction P. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem Respondents




JUDGEMENT

R.PERIASAMI,J - (1.)THE appellant has filed miscellaneous application for waiver of pre -deposit of entire dues arising out of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they are registered with the Service Tax Department for construction activities and are regularly discharging service tax after availing the abatement.
(2.)All their construction activities are as per the composite contract. Only in few cases their client has given them to carry out site formation work in addition to regular construction activities. When compared to the value of the contract, the percentage of site formation work is only 5% of the total value. He also submitted that they do not undertake site formation work in their construction activities. The adjudicating authority has demanded service tax on site formation and has also denied the abatement. He further submits that as per definition to Section 65A(2b), composite services consisting of a combination of different services which cannot be classified in the manner specified in clause (a) shall be classified as if they consisted of a service which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable. He submits that essential service is construction service which is under composite contract. He also produced sample copies of contracts in support of his contention. He relied on the following decisions: -
(a) M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. CCE - : 2009 (13) S.T.R. 661

(b) Vasu Construction v. CCE - : 2012 (25) S.T.R. 54

(c) National Construction Co. v. CCE - : 2014 (34) S.T.R. 739.

The learned AR reiterates the findings in the impugned order and submits that when this classification is specifically classifiable the same cannot be classified under composite service. After hearing both sides we find that the adjudicating authority has confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 6,41,198/ - under "Site formation and clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition Services". It cannot be called as a composite service. The decisions relied by the learned counsel relate to construction of telecommunication tower and also in the mining area whereas in the present case it relates to construction of site formation in commercial buildings. Therefore, prima facie, the appellants have not made out a strong case for waiver of pre -deposit of entire dues. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to pre -deposit Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees one lakh only) within a period of six weeks and report compliance on 31 -7 -2015. Upon such deposit, pre -deposit of the balance dues stands waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.