2019 (10) TMI 1326 - AT - Service Tax

Abatement in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 - erection, commissioning or installation service - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The definition of erection, commissioning or installation service specifically includes plumbing, drain laying or other installation for transport of fluids thus, it cannot be denied that the service provided by the appellant is squarely covered by the said definition. Thus, the demand of service tax is, therefore, upheld along with interest. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - It is seen that the definition of erection, commissioning or installation service clearly shows that it is specifically includes plumbing, drain laying or other installation for transport of fluids. Thus, leaving no doubt that the activity of the appellant is squarely covered for the purpose of service tax. In these circumstances, it is clear that the failure of the appellant to pay the amount as due to suppression leading to evasion of service tax. Consequently, extended period of limitation is also upheld. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Appeal against demand of service tax and penalty.
2. Abatement in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T.
3. Applicability of case laws and definition of taxable service.
4. Invocation of extended period of limitation.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the demand of service tax on M/s. Subhash Pipes Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed abatement in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. while confirming the demand of service tax on the balance amount along with penalty and interest.

2. The appellant laid pipelines for the Executive Engineer, involving various services like designing, supplying, laying, cutting, joining, and commissioning. A demand of service tax was raised on the appellant for erection, commissioning, or installation service. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which was modified by the first appellate authority by allowing abatement. The demand, along with penalty and interest on the balance value after abatement, was confirmed.

3. The appellant relied on various case laws in the appeal memorandum, but none of them dealt with the exact issue at hand. The Commissioner (Appeals) detailed the definition of taxable service under erection, commissioning, or installation. The service provided by the appellant was found to be covered under the definition, specifically including plumbing and drain laying for transport of fluids. The demand of service tax was upheld based on this analysis.

4. The appellant raised the issue of the extended period of limitation. However, the definition of erection, commissioning, or installation service clearly included the activities of the appellant, leaving no doubt about the applicability of service tax. The failure to pay the due amount was considered as suppression leading to evasion of service tax, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in the open court.

← Previous Next →