Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (5) TMI 341 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
Determining whether the activity undertaken by the respondent in the factory premises falls under Site Formation, Excavation, and Clearance Service during 2005-06 to 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur. The primary issue in question was whether the respondent's activities at M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. constituted Site Formation, Excavation, and Clearance Service. The Revenue argued that the work order issued clearly fell under this category, involving transportation, dumping of waste material, dozing, and leveling. However, the first appellate authority set aside the adjudication order, leading to the current appeal. The definition of Site Formation and Clearance Service was crucial, as it did not encompass the specific activities undertaken by the respondent. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments, emphasizing that the activities did not align with the defined scope of services.

The Tribunal referenced the definition of Site Formation and Clearance Service, highlighting activities such as drilling, boring, soil stabilization, and land reclamation, none of which matched the respondent's work. The first appellate authority's detailed analysis was crucial in determining that the respondent's activities were limited to transportation and dumping of waste material, excluding dozing and leveling. The clarification provided by M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. in subsequent letters further supported the respondent's position. The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's findings, concluding that the services rendered did not constitute Site Formation and Clearance Services, as claimed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, deeming it correct and legal, while rejecting the appeal for lack of merit. The detailed analysis of the activities, work orders, and clarifications provided a clear understanding of why the respondent's actions did not fall under the specified category of services. The judgment emphasized the importance of aligning the actual activities with the defined scope to determine the applicability of service tax, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondent based on the evidence and interpretations presented.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates