2018 (5) TMI 215 - AT - Service Tax

Erectioning and Commissioning service - appellant claims the service to be works contract service, which was not at all considered - Held that - even before the Authorities below the appellant from the very beginning raised the issue that the services rendered by them are Works Contract Service, in respect of certain agreements/contracts. However, the plea was not considered and the demand has been confirmed against the appellant. This issue has not been analysed and examined by the authorities below that whether the appellant in fact rendered Works Contract Service against the contracts. Hence, the aspect, needs to be scrutinized and verified in the light of the principle of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. s case 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT . Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara-II Commissionerate regarding service tax on Erectioning and Commissioning service provided to M/s BPCL & IOCL from 1999 to 2004.
- Allegation of taxable service by the appellant leading to a demand for service tax, interest, and penalty.
- Appeal before the Tribunal resulting in remand to re-consider the issue afresh.
- Reduction of demand by the Ld. Commissioner in de novo proceedings.
- Appellant's claim of providing Works Contract Service including supply of material.
- Reference to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in CCE vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. regarding service tax on Works Contract Service prior to 01.06.2007.
- Failure of authorities to analyze whether the appellant actually rendered Works Contract Service.
- Decision to remand the matter for further scrutiny and verification.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara-II Commissionerate concerning the taxation of Erectioning and Commissioning service provided by the appellant to M/s BPCL & IOCL from 1999 to 2004. The appellant was alleged to have provided a taxable service, leading to a demand for service tax, interest, and penalty. Following an appeal before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. In the subsequent de novo proceedings, the Ld. Commissioner reduced the demand after analyzing the evidence and various aspects of the case. However, the appellant contended that the services provided constituted Works Contract Service, including the supply of material, which was not considered by the authorities. The appellant referenced a Supreme Court judgment stating that service tax on Works Contract Service before 01.06.2007 cannot be levied. The Tribunal noted the failure of the authorities to analyze whether the appellant indeed provided Works Contract Service and decided to remand the matter for further scrutiny based on the legal principle established by the Supreme Court. As a result, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for a detailed examination of the evidence, including the contracts claimed to be Works Contract Service by the appellant.