9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax under Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., demand confirmation for commissioning and installation service, shifting of electric cables, GTA service abatement.
Waiver of pre-deposit under Notification No. 45/2010-S.T.: The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax amounting to &8377; 1,71,53,980/-. The demand of &8377; 91,34,165/- was confirmed for commissioning and installation service. The applicant argued that the activity pertained to supply, construction, erection, and commissioning of electricity-related infrastructure, claiming exemption under Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. The Tribunal noted that the Notification applied to services related to transmission and distribution of electricity, which the applicant had not undertaken. As the applicant was engaged in construction and testing of infrastructure, the benefit of the Notification was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit 50% of the confirmed demand within eight weeks, with the remaining dues waived upon such deposit. Recovery was stayed during the appeal's pendency. Demand related to shifting of electric cables: A demand of &8377; 36,50,671/- was raised for activities like shifting electric cables and laying high tension/low tension lines. The applicant admitted liability for &8377; 30 lakhs concerning internal electrification of a commercial building, agreeing to pay the corresponding service tax. Demand concerning GTA service abatement: Regarding a demand of &8377; 13,32,315/- for GTA service, the applicant contended that abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. was disallowed, necessitating payment of &8377; 4 lakhs as Service Tax. The Tribunal upheld this contention, affirming the liability for the mentioned amount. Conclusion: The Tribunal found the applicant ineligible for the Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. benefit due to the nature of services provided. While partial waiver was granted upon depositing 50% of the confirmed demand, the applicant's liability for other aspects of the demand was upheld. Compliance was required by a specified date, with recovery stayed during the appeal process.
|
