2012 (10) TMI 334 - AT - Service Tax

Erection Commissioning and Installation Imposition of Penalty - sub contractors were paying service tax - Held that - For providing service in relation to civil and electrical work and LAN cabling work as per the specific requirements for installing computers and other electronic gadgets registration under Service Tax has to be taken separately - no merit in the argument of the appellants that they were only an intermediary and not doing the work themselves and hence their activities did not amount to any service. - prima facie in favor of revenue - Stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellants not appearing for the hearing.
2. Applicability of service tax on services provided.
3. Interpretation of the definition of "erection, commissioning or installation."
4. Liability of the appellants for service tax.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the absence of the appellants during the hearing, leading to the case being reviewed with the assistance of the Revenue's representative.
2. The appeals revolve around the service provided by the appellants under "Business Auxiliary Service," which was later found to involve activities related to civil and electrical work, LAN cabling, and site preparation for installing electronic gadgets.
3. The Revenue argued that the appellants should have registered under "Erection Commissioning and Installation" to pay service tax, issuing a show cause notice for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
4. The definition of "erection, commissioning or installation" evolved over time, with the appellants contending that their activities did not fall under taxable services pre-16-06-2005 due to changes in the definition.
5. The appellants claimed to act as intermediaries, managing contractors and overseeing services, but the Revenue maintained that any service related to installing equipment was taxable, emphasizing the appellants' supervisory role.
6. The Tribunal acknowledged the distinction between site preparation and installation, ruling in favor of the appellants regarding liability before 16-06-2005 but upholding the tax liability post that date for services related to electrical and electronic devices.
7. The judgment directed the appellants to pre-deposit a specified amount within a deadline for appeal admission, with the waiver of the balance dues pending the appeal's resolution and compliance monitoring.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of the appellants' absence, service tax applicability, interpretation of definitions, and liability determination, providing a detailed overview of the judgment's key points and legal reasoning.