2012 (12) TMI 301 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax alleged that by undertaking the contracts for design, manufacture, commissioning and testing of signalling system and telecom systems for the railways, appellant have provided the services falling under the category of installation and commissioning agency services - Held that - Such service would not get covered under the category of installation and commissioning services for the period prior to 1-6-2007 - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of service tax against the applicants
- Imposition of penalties for undertaking contracts for design, manufacture, commissioning, and testing of signalling and telecom systems for railways
- Classification of services under installation and commissioning agency services
- Applicability of works contract service exemption for services provided to railways
- Interpretation of Tribunal decisions in ABB Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore and Alstom Projects India Ltd. v. CST, Delhi
- Granting of stay applications based on conflicting Tribunal decisions and pending appeals before the Supreme Court

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the confirmation of service tax and imposition of penalties against the applicants for providing services related to the design, manufacture, commissioning, and testing of signalling and telecom systems for railways. The authorities below classified these services under installation and commissioning agency services, leading to the demands being confirmed for the period from 2002 to 31st March 2009. The appellant contended that the services provided fell under works contract service, which was exempt if provided to railways. The Tribunal considered the issue in light of previous decisions, notably the ABB Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore case, where it was observed that such services would not fall under installation and commissioning services before 1-6-2007. However, the Tribunal also noted the decision in the Alstom Projects India Ltd. v. CST, Delhi case, which was brought to their attention. This case had conflicting implications, with one decision favoring the appellant and the other against them. Both decisions were under appeal before the Supreme Court, with no stay granted on the ABB Ltd. judgment. Given the conflicting nature of the decisions and the pending appeals, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant the stay petitions unconditionally in all four cases, following the judgment in ABB Ltd. to provide relief to the assessee.