2017 (1) TMI 1132 - AT - Service Tax

Works contract - installation and commissioning charges - service charges/commission for installation was neither separately computed nor mentioned on the body of invoices, whereas they were paying service tax on certain percentage of contracted value - whether demand of tax on these charges and levy of penalty justified? - Held that - the issue, whether works contract service, involving supply, installation and commissioning service, which is composite in nature, could be vivisected, and the service component be charged to service tax under the FA, 1994, has been finally, settled in Larsen & Toubro s case 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that the works contract service such as the one under consideration cannot be vivisected and subjected to service tax on the service component thereof - In the present case starting from the show cause notice level, it has been alleged that even though the Respondent had rendered Works Contract service and received consolidated charges towards such supply and service, they failed to discharge the service tax on the service component of the charges by vivisecting the works contract into supply and service. Thus, the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case - demand set aside - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Vivisecting of works contract for service tax computation.
2. Interpretation of Notification No.19/2003 dated 21.8.2003.
3. Application of service tax on composite works contracts.
4. Relevant legal precedents and judgments.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the issue of vivisecting works contracts for service tax computation. The Revenue alleged that the Respondent failed to separately compute and mention service charges/commission for installation and commissioning services in their invoices, leading to a demand notice for recovery of short-paid service tax and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, prompting the Revenue to file an appeal. The Respondent argued that the issue of vivisecting works contracts had been settled by the Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that works contract services cannot be vivisected for service tax purposes.

2. The interpretation of Notification No.19/2003 dated 21.8.2003 was crucial in this case. The dispute arose from the manner in which the Respondent invoiced their works contract services involving supply, installation, and commissioning of air conditioning systems. The Revenue contended that the consolidated invoicing method adopted by the Respondent was contrary to the provisions of the said notification. The legal representatives for both parties presented arguments based on the notification's requirements and their application to the facts of the case.

3. The application of service tax on composite works contracts was a central issue addressed in the judgment. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Larsen & Toubro's case, which clarified that in composite works contracts, the service elements should be bifurcated, ascertained, and then taxed. The Tribunal emphasized that the Finance Act, 1994 does not provide for the levy and assessment of service tax on indivisible composite works contracts. The decision highlighted the need to distinguish between the service component and other elements in such contracts for accurate taxation.

4. The judgment extensively discussed relevant legal precedents and judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Larsen & Toubro's case and the Tribunal's decision in C.C.E. Goa vs. R.K. Construction. These precedents guided the Tribunal's decision-making process in the present case, reinforcing the principles established regarding the taxation of works contract services and the vivisection of composite works contracts for service tax purposes. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal interpretations derived from these authoritative judgments, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeals.

Overall, the judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues related to vivisecting works contracts, interpreting relevant notifications, applying service tax on composite works contracts, and relying on significant legal precedents to arrive at a well-founded decision.