9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 18 - AT - Service TaxService Tax on Works contract - Levy prior to 01.06.2007 - difference of opinion - matter referred to larger bench on the following issues i) Whether a works contract can be vivisected even prior to 01/06/2007 and the service portion discernible in the contract can be subjected to levy of service tax and in the present case, since the discernible service is erection, installation and commissioning , the said activity is leviable to service tax under section 65(105)(zzd) read with section 65(39a)/65(28) as they stood at the relevant time prior to 01/06/2007 and under section 65(105)(zzzza) on or after 01/06/2007 as held by Hon ble Member (Technical), relying on the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of BSBK Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (5) TMI 46 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - LB and the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL Ltd., 2006 (3) TMI 1 - Supreme court Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association 2004 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , and Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Govt. of India 2012 (11) TMI 404 - SUPREME COURT and the matter should be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of the value of the taxable service by extending the benefit of notification no. 12/2003-ST, 19/2003-ST & 01/2006-ST; and ii) The limitation of time bar does not apply except in the case of Contract pertaining to Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. as held by the Member (Technical) based on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (4) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and the Larger Bench decision in the case of Usha Rectifier Corporation 2000 (4) TMI 117 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI . OR i) Whether a works contract cannot be vivisected prior to 01/06/2007 and subjected to levy of service tax under erection, installation and commissioning service as held by Hon ble Member (Judicial), based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara 2007 (12) TMI 20 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , Indian Oil Tanking Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 443 - CESTAT, MUMBAI and of the apex Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 1985 (60) STC 1 (SC); and (ii) The demand is time barred as held by the Hon ble Member (Judicial).
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a lump sum turnkey works contract can be vivisected into supply of goods and supply of services. 2. Whether service tax can be levied on the service portion of a works contract prior to 01.06.2007. 3. The applicability of limitation period for the demand of service tax. 4. The correct valuation method for determining the service tax liability. 5. The imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Vivisection of Lump Sum Turnkey Works Contract: The Tribunal held that a composite lump sum turnkey contract can be vivisected into supply of goods and supply of services for the purpose of levy of service tax, provided the services involved are taxable as defined in section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. This conclusion was supported by the decisions of the Apex Court in the BSNL case and the larger Bench decision in the BSBK case. The Tribunal emphasized that the contracts in question provided separate values for the services and goods supplied, thus rejecting the argument of indivisibility of contracts. 2. Levy of Service Tax Prior to 01.06.2007: The Tribunal concluded that service tax on erection, commissioning, and installation services was leviable under section 65(105)(zzd) read with section 65(39a) of the Finance Act, 1994, even prior to 01.06.2007. This was based on the interpretation that the scope of services remained the same before and after the introduction of works contract service on 01.06.2007. The Tribunal rejected the argument that no tax was leviable prior to 01.06.2007, citing that the law provided for the levy of service tax on the discernible service portion of a works contract. 3. Applicability of Limitation Period: The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was applicable, except for the contract with Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., where a previous order by the Deputy Commissioner had attained finality. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not disclose the details of the services in the ST3 returns and had collected service tax as part of the consideration, which was not remitted to the exchequer. Thus, the invocation of the extended period was justified. 4. Valuation Method for Service Tax Liability: The Tribunal directed that service tax should be levied only on the consideration charged for the services provided, excluding the value of goods supplied. The benefit of exemption notifications (12/2003-ST, 19/2003-ST, and 1/2006-ST) should be extended to the appellant, subject to the production of satisfactory documentary evidence. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of the service tax liability, taking into account the abatements and exclusions. 5. Imposition of Penalties: The Tribunal did not specifically address the imposition of penalties in the majority decision. However, the dissenting Member (Judicial) held that no penalties should be imposed, citing the absence of fraud, suppression of facts, or contumacious conduct by the appellant. The dissenting Member also noted that the appellant had provided all requisite details to the Revenue and had taken a consistent stand on non-liability to service tax. Separate Judgments: - Majority Decision: The majority decision by Member (Technical) upheld the levy of service tax on the discernible service portion of the works contract, allowed for the re-determination of service tax liability with abatements, and justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation. - Dissenting Opinion: Member (Judicial) disagreed, arguing that in the absence of a clear mandate in the Finance Act, 1994, to bifurcate composite contracts and tax the service element, such levy was impermissible prior to 01.06.2007. The dissenting Member also held that the demand was time-barred and set aside the penalties imposed. Conclusion: The matter was referred to the Hon'ble President to resolve the difference of opinion between the two Members on whether a works contract can be vivisected prior to 01.06.2007 for the purpose of levying service tax and the applicability of the extended period of limitation.
|
