2018 (9) TMI 911 - AT - Service Tax

Erection and commissioning of electrical towers - GTA Services - demand alongwith Interest and penalty - N/N. 45/2010 dt. 20.07.2010 - Held that - In a number of cases involving identical disputes, the Tribunal has consistently reiterated that all taxable services relating to assessment and distribution of electricity upto the periods indicated in the said notification will not be taxable - reliance placed in the case of M/S HYDERABAD POWER INSTALLATIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, C& ST, HYDERABAD-II 2016 (7) TMI 1151 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of service tax on erection services
2. Applicability of Notification No.45/2010 on taxable services related to transmission and distribution of electricity
3. Reversal of impugned order and setting aside the demand

Issue 1: Liability of service tax on erection services
The appellants were engaged in erection and commissioning of electrical towers for a corporation. A show cause notice was issued proposing demand of service tax liability on Erection and GTA Services. The original authority confirmed the demand of &8377; 24,77,370/- in respect of erection services with interest and imposed a penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Both the department and the appellants appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeals. The appellants then filed this appeal challenging the demand.

Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No.45/2010 on taxable services related to transmission and distribution of electricity
During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that Notification No.45/2010 exempted all taxable services related to transmission and distribution of electricity till specific dates, thus the impugned order should be set aside. The Tribunal acknowledged that the notification had a retrospective beneficial effect on the case. Referring to similar cases, the Tribunal held that services related to assessment and distribution of electricity till the specified dates in the notification were not taxable. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained and needed to be set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law.

Issue 3: Reversal of impugned order and setting aside the demand
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that the Notification No.45/2010 had a retrospective beneficial effect on the case. Citing precedents and case laws, the Tribunal held that the impugned order could not be sustained and needed to be set aside. Therefore, the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law, effectively reversing the demand imposed on the appellants for the service tax liability on erection services.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and outcome.