2017 (5) TMI 1785 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of benefit under abatement claim - allegation is that appellant has not supplied the plant, machinery, equipment to the customers, while providing erection, commissioning and installation services - N/N. 19/2003 -ST dated 15.1.03 and 01/2006-ST dated 1.2.2006 - HELD THAT - Since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upon verification of the contract entered into between the appellant and the service-receiver has held that claim of abatement is not permissible as per the contents of the notification, the impugned order cannot be interfered with at this juncture, being passed upon verification of the factual aspects. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Denial of abatement claimed under Notification No. 19/2003-ST and 01/2006-ST for erection, commissioning, and installation services.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order denying the appellant the benefit of abatement claimed under Notification No. 19/2003-ST and 01/2006-ST for erection, commissioning, and installation services. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant did not supply plant, machinery, or equipment to customers while providing these services. The appellant failed to appear despite multiple notices, and the case proceeded with the Revenue's representative present.

The Commissioner (Appeals) based the denial of abatement on the contracts submitted by the appellant, specifically citing a contract with M/s. Reliance Engineering Associates Private Ltd. The contract indicated that the appellant was responsible for erection and commissioning work of equipment supplied by the customer, not for supplying plant, machinery, or major equipment. Invoices submitted by the appellant also showed supply of minor items, not plant or machinery. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the abatement under the mentioned notifications.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the Commissioner's findings, upheld the impugned order, stating that it could not be interfered with as it was based on factual verification of the contract terms. The Tribunal found no errors in the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appellant's appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of contractual terms and the specific nature of services provided in determining eligibility for abatement under relevant notifications.