Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd on 22 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
C.E.A.No.10/2021
BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
AND SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE-IV
COMMISIONERATE, 59 HMT BHAVAN
BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE SOUTH
COMMISIONERATE, P O BOX NO.5400
C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDAN SANJAY BHAT, ADV. FOR
SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADV.)
AND
M/S GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD
IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK
PHASE 2 'D', 10TH FLOOR
2
4/1, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560029.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADV.)
THE CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL FILED UNDER
SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, ARISING OUT
OF ORDER DATED 17/06/2020 PASSED IN FINAL
ORDER NO. A/20364-20365/2020 PASSED BY
CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU
PRAYING TO A) DECIDE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF
LAW FORMULATED AT PARA 11 OF THE APPEAL MEMO
AND ETC.
THIS CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J. DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING;
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 35G
of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) challenging
the final order No. A/20364-20365/2020 dated 17.06.2020
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru ('CESTAT' for
short) raising the following substantial questions of law:-
a) whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal is right in law in
holding that 'Construction of Toll Plaza,
Administration Building, Rest rooms and
miscellaneous works as part of the road
construction having no separate existence
and are meant only for the purpose of
road, hence the same is not liable to
service tax?"
b) whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal is right in law
setting aside the disallowance of CENVAT
credit on various input services, which are
not in consonance with Rule 4A of the
Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule
9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 such as
the Service Tax Registration number not
mentioned, category of service not
mentioned, etc., apart from such defects,
certain documents are of services which
do not have any nexus outpur services
also?
c) whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
right in law in holding that the extended
period of limitation is not invocable?
d) whether on the facts and in the
circumstance of the case, the Tribunal is
right in law in holding that the
classification of service for the period
from 01.06.2007 to be classifiable under
the 'works contract service' defined under
Section 65 (105)(zza) of the Act, and not
classifiable as 'construction service' under
Section 65(105)(zzq)?
e) whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
right in law in setting aside all the
penalties?
2. Learned counsel appearing on both sides
jointly submitted that in the very same assessee's
case, this Court considering the identical substantial
questions of law held that the appeal before this Court
is not maintainable. Accordingly, CEA No.13/2021
(decided on 02.12.2021) was dismissed as not
maintainable reserving liberty to the appellant to
present the appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court
under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is
dismissed in similar terms.
The Registry is directed to return the
original/certified copies of the Annexures to the
learned counsel for the appellant keeping photocopies
of the same for record purpose.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSD
