2010 (6) TMI 188 - AT - Service Tax

Consulting Engineer Service- Appellant contending that commissioning and installation charges not part of Consulting Engineer service during impugned period as erection service become liable from 01.07.2003. Held that- activity not covered and appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's case was mistakenly listed for hearing again.
2. Taxability of charges for "erection & commissioning" of machinery from July 1997 to September 2001.
3. Consideration of "commissioning and installation" charges under engineering consultancy services for taxation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that their case was already addressed in a previous order related to another case. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant failed to rectify the mistake by not submitting an application for rectification in time. The tribunal emphasized the importance of vigilance from litigants in addressing court mistakes promptly to avoid suffering due to court errors.

2. The appellant contended that charges for "erection & commissioning" of machinery should not be taxable for the period from July 1997 to September 2001. The appellant argued that these charges were not part of engineering consultancy services, which were taxable from a later date. The tribunal examined the contract details from the appeal folder and concluded that the charges were not liable for tax during the mentioned period. The tribunal allowed the appeal based on this analysis.

3. The issue of whether "commissioning and installation" charges should be considered under engineering consultancy services for taxation was raised. The Revenue supported bringing these charges under one umbrella for taxation. However, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument. The tribunal determined that the charges for commissioning and installation were not taxable based on the contract details and the effective date for taxation. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

Additional Judgment:
In Appeal No. 70/04-Mum, the appellant faced interest on a demand related to a previous appeal, which was held to be not sustainable. As a result, the tribunal ruled that no levy of interest should apply in the present appeal. The tribunal allowed the appeal in Appeal No. 70/04-Mum as well, in line with the decision on the previous appeal.