2015 (1) TMI 142 - AT - Service Tax

Erection, commissioning and installation - Notification No.1/2006-ST dt. 1.3.2006 - Held that - Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of lifts. They paid central excise duty on the parts of lifts at the time of clearance from their factory. There is further activity of erection, commissioning and installation at their customer s premises. They paid service tax on a notional percentage of 15% of the contract value on erection, commissioning and installation. According to Revenue, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on 33% of the contract value as per Notification No.1/2006-ST dt. 1.3.2006. - appellant had not produced the documents in support of their contention of sale of goods. It is seen that the appellant had arrived at a notional percentage of 15% of the contract value - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Central excise duty on parts of lifts
- Service tax on erection, commissioning, and installation activities
- Dispute over the percentage of contract value for service tax
- Remand to adjudicating authority for detailed examination

Central Excise Duty on Parts of Lifts:
The judgment addresses the issue of the appellant being engaged in the manufacture of lifts and paying central excise duty on parts of lifts at the time of clearance from their factory. It is noted that there is further activity involving erection, commissioning, and installation at the customer's premises. The Revenue contends that the appellant should pay service tax on 33% of the contract value, while the appellant had been paying on a notional percentage of 15%. The tribunal decides to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a detailed examination.

Service Tax on Erection, Commissioning, and Installation Activities:
The judgment discusses the appellant's payment of service tax on a notional percentage of the contract value for erection, commissioning, and installation activities. The Revenue argues for a higher percentage based on a specific notification. The tribunal observes that the appellant had not produced documents supporting their contention of the sale of goods. It is decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after examining the documents in detail.

Dispute Over the Percentage of Contract Value for Service Tax:
The judgment highlights the disagreement between the appellant and the Revenue regarding the percentage of the contract value for service tax calculation. The tribunal notes that the issue requires detailed examination by the adjudicating authority, as the appellant had not provided sufficient documentation to support their position. The matter is remanded for a thorough review and a decision based on the earlier remand order.

Remand to Adjudicating Authority for Detailed Examination:
The judgment emphasizes the need for a detailed examination by the adjudicating authority due to the high revenue stake involved. It refers to a previous remand order and directs the adjudicating authority to determine the incidence and quantum of levy in accordance with the law. The tribunal sets a deadline of four months for the adjudicating authority to decide the matter, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present evidence. The appeal is allowed by way of remand, and the stay application is disposed of.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses various issues related to central excise duty, service tax calculation, and the remand to the adjudicating authority for a detailed examination. It underscores the importance of proper documentation and a fair opportunity for all parties involved in resolving the disputes.