2013 (12) TMI 1220 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Erection and commissioning of machines - Whether the two payments made on 5.1.2008 and 8.4.2008 were towards discharge of the demand confirmed in the impugned order - Held that - benefit under Notification No.1/06-ST cannot be extended for the reason that assessee has not proved that they were eligible for any CENVAT credit - The adjudicating authority has not adopted such logic which would imply that there such logic would not have been adverse to the appellant - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services under "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services" for the period 2005-2008.
2. Eligibility for threshold exemption and applicability of Notification No.1/06-ST for contracts involving supply of materials.
3. Disputed payments made towards the confirmed demand.
4. Adjudication on the contention regarding payments made in early 2008.
5. Requirement of further predeposit by the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the classification of services rendered by the appellant under "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services" for the period 2005-2008. The Revenue contended that services provided during this timeframe fell under the said category, leading to a demand for unpaid service tax amounting to Rs.19,50,435.

2. The appellant argued for eligibility for threshold exemption in the initial year and raised concerns regarding the applicability of Notification No.1/06-ST for contracts involving the supply of materials. They highlighted that certain receipts related to services rendered before the introduction of the tax levy on "erection, commissioning, and installation," which should not be taxed.

3. A significant aspect of the case involved disputed payments made by the appellant towards the confirmed demand. The appellant claimed to have deposited approximately Rs.9.56 lakhs out of the total demand, asserting that the deposited amount was sufficient even if all prayers of the Revenue were granted.

4. The adjudication process scrutinized the payments made in early 2008 in relation to the confirmed demand. The tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity on whether these payments were towards discharging the demand or not, indicating a need for further examination and cooperation from both parties.

5. Ultimately, the tribunal directed the appellant to make a further predeposit of Rs.2,00,000 within a specified timeframe, considering the overall circumstances of the case. Subject to this deposit, the predeposit of the remaining dues from the impugned order was waived, and the collection stayed during the appeal's pendency, providing a temporary resolution to the financial aspect of the dispute.