Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad REGIONAL BENCH-COURT NO. 3 Service Tax Appeal No. 11412 of 2014- DB (Arising out of OIO-RAJ-EXCUS-000-COM-158-13-14 dated 27/12/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Adjudication)-RAJKOT)

Vinay Construction Co ……..Appellant

110-112, Silver Chambers, Tagore Marg, Rajkot, Gujarat VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot ……Respondent Central Excise Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road...Income Tax Office, Rajkot, Gujarat- 360001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Jigar Shah & Shri Amber Kumrawat Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajesh Nathan, Assistant Commissioner(AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Final Order No. 10046/2024 DATE OF HEARING: 04.09.2023 DATE OF DECISION: 04.01.2024 RAMESH NAIR The issues involved in the present case are as follows:

a. Whether services provided by the Appellant to GSPHCL becomes taxable under the category of ‘Construction of Complex Service’?

b. Whether services provided by the Appellant to Municipal Corporation and Nagarpalika under the JNNURM Scheme becomes taxable under the category of ‘Construction of Complex Service’?

c. Whether service by way of construction of compounding wall for BECL becomes Taxable under the category of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’?

2. Shri Jigar Shah, Learned Counsel along with Shri Ambar Kumrawat Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant made a detailed submission on multiple counts which are extracted below:

(I) The issue of levy of service tax on services in question are covered by various decision of this Tribunal.

(II) Construction of residential quarters under taking by the appellant for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd is not taxable under ‘construction of complex service’.

(III) To attract the definition of residential complex the number of residential units, in a building should be more than 12 units, whereas in the present case the appellant have constructed less than 12 unit in a single block. Therefore, the demand under ‘construction of complex service’ could not have been made by the department.

(IV) The property constructed by the appellant gets transferred to the concerned department of the Government of Gujarat. Therefore, on the basis of principal of accretion the activity is not taxable.

(V) Construction of residential quarters undertaken by the appellant for Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Surat Municipal Corporation, Vadodara Municipal Corporation and Jaitpur Navgadh Nagarpalika is not taxable under ‘construction of complex service’.

(VI) Construction of residential unit undertaken for Municipal Corporations and Nagarpalika, as the same is covered under Jawaharlal National Urban Renewal Mission (JJNURM) is not liable to service tax.

(VII) Appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax for the work undertaken for Bhavnagar Energy Company Ltd (BECL) under the head of ‘construction of complex service’. As the same is not for commercial or industrial.

(VIII) The computation of tax liability is incorrect in as much as the authority below have not considered the gross value as cumulative price. The extended period of limitation was wrongly evoked as there is no suppression of fact. The appellant cannot be made subject to penalty.

2.1 On the above submission, the appellant relied upon the following judgements and Board circulars:

 Riddhi Siddhi Construction V. CCE & ST, 2023 (5)TMI 340-CESTAT (Ahm.)

 DH patel V. CCE 2023 (4) TMI 920-CESTAT (Ahm.)

 Khurana Engineering V. CCE Ahmedabad, 2010 (11) TMI 81- CESTAT (Ahm.)

 Khurana Engineering Limited V.CCE 2011 (21) STR 115 (T)

 Sri Venkateswara Engg Corporation 2012 (28) STR 13 (Comm.Appl.)  M/s Marco Marvel Projects Limited, 2008 (12) STR 603 (Tri-Chennai)

 State of AP Vs. Larsen & Tubro Ltd, (2008) 17 VST 1 (SC)

 A.S. Sikarwar V. CCE, 2012 (28) STR 479  RN Dobariya V. SSE & ST 2023 (2) TMI 779-CESTAT Ahmedabad  Circular F No. 334/3/2010-TRU dated 01.07.2010  DH