KUSHWAH ELECTRIC WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been providing services to oil companies like M/s. BPCL for undertaking certain civil work specified in different contracts.

(2.) The Revenue was of the view that contracts involved three components viz. (i) supply of manpower, (ii) construction of buildings and (iii) maintenance and repair of buildings. Revenue was of the view that the appellants could claim abatement of 67% only in respect of the construction activity whereas they have claimed abatement for other activities also. Based on such reasoning, a Show Cause Notice has been issued and adjudicated confirming demand of Rs. 42,29,560/ - against them for the period 1 -10 -2003 to 31 -10 -2008. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant makes it clear that the manpower was used by appellant to execute the contract and there was no separate contract for supplying the manpower. The manpower mentioned in the contract is the labour utilised by the appellant for executing the construction work. He also submits that there is no separate maintenance and repair in the contract. In many cases the construction activity done was maintenance of repair of buildings. Such activity is also covered by definition for industrial construction. Ld. AR on the other hand has not been able to point out how the value for the three components has been arrived at by the adjudicating authority for each service from composite contracts. He makes a point that there has been some material supplied free of cost by the service receiver and such value was not included before claiming abatement under Notification No. 1/2006 -S.T. We have considered arguments on both the sides. We do not prima facie agree with the argument of Revenue that the service could be split into three components. In the case of material supplied free of cost, there are many such disputes pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Court has granted stay against enforcing demands based on arguments given by Revenue in this case. So we waive pre -deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admissions of appeal. There shall be stay on collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeal.