IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P.Sam Koshy, Narsing Rao Nandikonda, JJ.
The Commissioner Of Customs Central Excise And Service Tax - Appellant
Versus
M/s Nagarjuna Consltruciton Co. Ltd., Hyd – Respondent
Central Excise Appeal No.04 of 2011
Decided On : 12-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and preliminary facts (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding classification of services offered by nccl (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of statutory definitions and application of service tax (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. inspections of gwssb's classification as an industry (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. final order confirming dismissal of central excise appeal (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT:
Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.
This appeal is filed by the appellant-respondent under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, ‘the Act, 1944’) against the Final Order No.819 of 2010, dated 17.05.2010 passed in Appeal No.AT/73/2008 by the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, FKCCI-WTC Building, K.G. Road, Bangalore (for short, ‘CESTAT’).
2. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Excise, appearing for the appellant and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.Chitralekha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited is having its Registered Office at Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘NCCL’) and obtained Centralized Registration with Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, for the purpose of discharging its service tax liability for certain taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, the Act, 1994’) provided at various places all over India under Service Tax Registration No.AAACP4709NST001.
4. It is stated that NCCL is registered with the department as provider of taxable service falling under the category ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services’, ‘Consulting Engineers Services’, ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services’ etc. The NCCL was awarded contract for laying of long distance pipelines in the State of Gujarat under a contract awarded to them by M/s. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (GWSSB). Basing on the Intelligence gathered by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, it was found that the respondent was not paying appropriate Service Tax on the said Taxable Services and an inquiry was initiated and investigation was conducted by the DGCEI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit.
5. It is further stated that basing on the said findings of the inquiry, a Demand-cum-show cause notice in F.No. DGCEI /AZU /12(4)27/ 2005- Nagarjuna, dated 30.07.2007 was issued by the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit to the assessee, proposing total demand of Rs.7,15,36,082/- towards the Service Tax payable by the assessee. But, the same was not paid by the assessee on the said Taxable Service of CICS during the period 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2007 under Section 73 of the Act, 1994 by invoking the extended period of five years as per proviso to sub section (1) of Section 73 of the Act, 1994. A show cause notice was issued proposing charging of interest on the said tax amount in terms of Section 75 of the Act, 1994 and also penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, 1994.
6. It is stated that the said show cause notice was answerable to the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, being the Jurisdictional Adjudicating authority. It is further averred that the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, Hyderabad vide Order- in-Original No.19/2008-ST, dated 31.10.2008 confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.7,15,36,082/- under Section 73 (2) of the Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act, 1994 and imposed penalties (i) at the rate of two percent per month on the service tax amount, starting with the first day after due date till the date of actual payment, however not exceeding the service tax payable, in terms of Section 76 of the Act, 1994 and (ii) Rs.8 crores penalty under Section 78 of the Act, 1994, however, the same
Water supply board functions are recognized as sovereign activities, exempting associated construction services from service tax under the Central Excise Act.
Services rendered for public projects are not taxable under Works Contract Service as they are non-commercial in nature.
Service Matter- The terms and conditions of the agreement are to be followed by the parties to the agreement and any violation of the same has its consequences in the agreement itself and the writ-ap....
The court reaffirmed that failure to follow termination procedures under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act warrants compensation, but does not guarantee regularization of services.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.