2012 (9) TMI 271 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Extended period of limitation - Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service appellants are providing the services of erection, commissioning and installation of green houses Held that - Where there is a bona fide belief that their activity amounts to manufacturing and are not liable to service tax, as contended by the appellants, demands only for normal period are sustainable - activity undertaken by the appellants are covered under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service - appellants should be directed to make pre-deposit of the demands of service tax for the normal period - appeals are disposed of by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with statutory provisions
- Classification of services under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service
- Bona fide belief of appellants regarding liability to pay service tax
- Granting of stay applications based on pre-deposit of service tax demands
- Directions for remand and compliance with Commissioner (Appeals)

Dismissal of Appeals for Non-Compliance:
The appellants contended that their appeals were dismissed due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned orders were not passed on merits, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The appellants sought relief based on this non-compliance.

Classification of Services under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service:
The case revolved around the services provided by the appellants in erecting, commissioning, and installing greenhouses for customers. The department argued that these activities fell under Erection, Commissioning, and Installation Service, warranting a demand for service tax. The adjudicating authority upheld the demands, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) where stay applications were considered. The Commissioner (Appeals) found demands post-01/05/2006 to be sustainable, requiring the appellants to pre-deposit the service tax amount.

Bona Fide Belief of Appellants Regarding Tax Liability:
The appellants argued that their activities constituted manufacturing at the site, citing the decision in a previous case. They believed their activities were not subject to service tax due to a genuine belief in their manufacturing nature. The appellants also highlighted payments made in similar cases to support their plea for a stay and a review on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Granting of Stay Applications Based on Pre-Deposit:
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that demands for the normal period were sustainable if there was a genuine belief that the activities did not attract service tax. The Tribunal directed the appellants to make pre-deposits for the normal period of service tax. Stay was granted for the balance amount in cases where partial payments had already been made. Specific pre-deposit amounts and compliance timelines were outlined for different appellants.

Directions for Remand and Compliance with Commissioner (Appeals):
The Tribunal granted a stay for one of the appellants, subject to a pre-deposit and compliance deadline. Upon compliance, all appeals were to be heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits, considering the appellants' submissions in their defense. The Tribunal clarified that its observations were preliminary and did not affect the case's merits. The appeals were disposed of through remand, along with the stay applications. Compliance with the outlined directions was mandated for further proceedings.