2017 (5) TMI 625 - AT - Service Tax

Erection, commissioning and installation of wind mills - civil works - electrical works - denial of N/N. 19/2003-ST dated 21/08/2003 and 12/2006-ST - Held that - it is a fact that appellant had not urged before the adjudicating authority that the contracts entered into by them with their clients, were in nature of works contract. Having not raised this point before the adjudicating authority and not produced any documents in support of that claim before him, we find that the adjudicating authority could not have arrived at any conclusion and record any findings as to whether the contracts entered into by the appellant were work contract or otherwise - matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal.
2. Additional grounds urged by the appellant.
3. Nature of contracts - works contract or not.
4. Consideration of new plea by the appellant.
5. Remand to adjudicating authority for reconsideration.
6. Refund claim rejection.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were directed against Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application to urge additional grounds in the appeals. The dispute revolved around civil works and electrical works related to the erection, commissioning, and installation of wind mills.

2. The appellant sought to argue that the contracts were works contracts, and therefore, the tax liability did not arise as per the law settled by the apex Court. The appellant referred to the case law of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. The Authorized Representative contended that the new plea raised by the appellant regarding the nature of the contracts was not raised before the adjudicating authority.

3. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions regarding the additional grounds raised. It was noted that the point about the contracts being works contracts was not raised before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the matter needed reconsideration by the adjudicating authority based on the contracts and relevant evidence.

4. As the issue of the contracts being works contracts was not previously considered by the adjudicating authority, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant was given the liberty to produce any supporting documents for their case.

5. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a reconsideration of the nature of the contracts. Additionally, a consequential appeal regarding the rejection of a refund claim was also remanded for the adjudicating authority to review in the correct perspective.

6. The Tribunal pronounced the decision on 13/04/2017, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration by the adjudicating authority based on the new grounds raised by the appellant.