2024 (6) TMI 506 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of the entry no. 29(h) of the mega N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 28th June, 2012 - AIIMS Rishikesh falls under the description Governmental Authority - extended period of limitation. Benefit of the notification - HELD THAT - It is seen that the definition of works contract service at the material time specifically included erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether prefabricated or otherwise, installation of electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation and air conditioner . There was no doubt that the said service was taxable. Moreover, there was no exemption to this category of service if provided for purposes other than commerce or industries . The appellants have paid VAT under works contract. Thus, we hold that the said service provided by appellant was taxable. The appellants have shown that there was exemption for period after 01.07.2012 but for period prior to that no exemption has been shown. Thus demand for the period prior to 01.07.2012 has rightly been confirmed. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - For period prior to 01.07.2012 there was absolutely no doubt as the service was specifically covered in the definition itself. There was no scope of as doubt. Thus, there are no merit in the defense of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against confirmation of demand of service tax, interest, and penalty u/s 77 and 78.

Summary:
The appeal was filed against the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty u/s 77 and 78 by M/s. ETA Engineering Private Limited. The appellant provided services related to air conditioning systems at a hospital complex and underground metro stations. The demand for services provided to AIIMS through JMC Projects was partly confirmed. The appellant argued that the service provided was a works contract service and not just erection, commissioning, or installation. They also contended that the demand was beyond the normal period of limitation and there were no malafides in the proceedings. The tribunal considered the scope of work provided by the appellant and concluded that the service was classifiable as a works contract service. The tribunal noted that the appellant was paying VAT under works contract service and deducting TDS as well. The definition of works contract service was analyzed to determine the taxability of the service provided by the appellant. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the service provided was taxable for the period prior to 01.07.2012, and there was no merit in the appellant's defense regarding the issue of limitation.

The tribunal referred to previous decisions and legal definitions to support their conclusion that the service provided by the appellant was taxable as a works contract service. The tribunal also highlighted the appellant's payment of VAT under works contract service as evidence of the nature of the service provided. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that there was no doubt regarding the taxability of the service provided by the appellant for the period prior to 01.07.2012.