2015 (2) TMI 1062 - AT - Service Tax

Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service- Construction of transmission tower and related services- exemption under Notification No. 45/2010 dated 20.07.2010 - Held that - Contract is relating to the services such as earth work excavation, stub setting, concreting tower erection, stringing power conductor etc. Prima facie, in our considered view, the construction of transmission tower and related services could be covered by the exemption Notification No. 45/2010. It is noted that the applicant has already paid an amount of ₹ 7,16,205/-, which is sufficient for hearing of the appeal. We also find force in the submission of the Ld. AR that the exemption Notification would not apply in the case of construction of control room - Matter remanded back - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appeal can be decided at the stage of the stay petition hearing.
2. Whether the services provided by the contractor to TNEB are exempt from service tax under Notification No. 45/2010.
3. Whether the pre-deposit amount directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified.

Issue 1: Appeal Decision at Stay Petition Hearing
The Tribunal found that the appeal could be decided during the stay petition hearing. After hearing both sides, it was decided to proceed with the appeal itself after disposing of the stay petition.

Issue 2: Service Tax Exemption
The contractor was engaged by TNEB for various services, including earth work excavation, tower erection, and power conductor stringing. A show cause notice proposed a tax demand, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. However, the Tribunal noted that services related to the transmission of electricity to TNEB might be covered by the exemption under Notification No. 45/2010. The Tribunal also considered the precedent where a similar appeal was allowed concerning the erection of electricity transmission towers.

Issue 3: Pre-deposit Amount Justification
The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the applicant to make a pre-deposit, which was partially adjusted against a previous deposit. The Tribunal observed that the amount already paid was sufficient for the appeal hearing. While the exemption might not apply to the construction of a control room, this aspect was to be decided during the appeal hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. The appeal was allowed through remand, and the stay petition was disposed of.