2014 (8) TMI 549 - AT - Service Tax

Abatement claimed by him under Notification No. 19/2003 - Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services - Held that - benefit of Notification No. 19/2003-S.T. talks about abatement of 67% if there is a sale of the materials and the words used are sold . On perusal of the records, we find that there is nothing on record to show that there was sale of material by the appellant to the service receiver. It is also on record that the appellant s main job was erection of piping work. In the service recipient factory premises pipes were provided by the service receiver. Appellant is unable to make out a prima facie case for the complete waiver of the amount of service tax confirmed by the adjudicating authority under the Head Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services by availing benefit of Notification No. 19/2003-S.T. In view of this, we are of the view that the appellant should be put to some conditions for hearing and disposing the appeal - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability on the appellant in respect of abatement claimed under Notification No. 19/2003 for Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services.

Analysis:
The case involved a stay petition for the waiver of pre-deposit related to a demand of service tax, interest, penalty, and further penalty. The issue revolved around the service tax liability concerning the abatement claimed by the appellant under Notification No. 19/2003 for services like Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services. The Tribunal focused specifically on services rendered under the category of Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services for the purpose of the stay.

The appellant's counsel argued that the adjudicating authority erred in confirming the demands, claiming that the appellant's fabrication activity should fall under the service tax net only after a specific amendment. The counsel relied on previous Tribunal judgments related to the issue at hand and the benefit of the notification in question. On the other hand, the SDR contended that the adjudicating authority had adequately addressed the issues in the Order-in-Original, suggesting stringent conditions for hearing and disposing of the appeal.

After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal observed that the benefit of Notification No. 19/2003 pertained to a percentage of abatement in case of material sales, which was not demonstrated in the appellant's case. It was noted that the appellant's primary task was piping work, with the service recipient providing the pipes. The Tribunal found the appellant unable to establish a prima facie case for a complete waiver of the confirmed service tax amount under Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a specified timeframe, subject to which the waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts was allowed, and recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of meeting specific conditions for hearing and disposing of the appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim for a complete waiver of the service tax amount confirmed by the adjudicating authority.