2010 (4) TMI 545 - AT - Service Tax

Erection, installation and commissioning service- issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on the various projects undertaken by them. The adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the fabrication, erection, installation and commissioning works undertaken by the appellant will fall under the category of erection, installation and commissioning service with effect from 10-7-2004 and having not discharged the service tax liability, they are liable to pay the service tax. Assessee contended that main contractor had discharged service tax liability on entire service rendered and as sub-contractor, it was not liable to pay service tax. Held that - since issue required appreciation of evidence on factual matrix, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to adjudicating authority to reconsider afresh.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability on various projects undertaken by the appellant.

Analysis:
The case involves a stay petition for the waiver of pre-deposit amounts related to tax, education cess, S/H Ed. Cess, interest, and penalties under sections 77 and 78. The issue revolves around the service tax liability on projects undertaken by the appellant, categorized as 'erection, installation, and commissioning service' by the adjudicating authority. The authority concluded that the appellant, as subcontractors, failed to discharge the service tax liability and thus are liable to pay the service tax.

The tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of promptly as it is narrow in scope. It granted a waiver of the pre-deposit amounts, allowing the appeal for disposal. The appellant contended that the main contractor had already paid the service tax liability, and as subcontractors, they were not obligated to pay the service tax. However, the adjudicating authority did not consider this argument adequately, leading to a non-speaking order.

Upon review, the tribunal determined that the adjudicating authority's findings did not address the appellant's plea regarding the main contractor discharging the service tax liability. The tribunal held that the impugned order was non-speaking on this crucial point, setting it aside, and remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration after providing the appellant with a personal hearing. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for further review.