2015 (11) TMI 1420 - AT - Service Tax

Services of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services - Denial of benefit of Notification No.45/2010 ST dt. 20.07.2010 - Held that - Assessee-Appellant were undisputedly engaged in providing service relating to transmission and distribution of electricity. The claim of the Appellant-assessee is that by virtue of Notification No.45/2010 ST dt. 20.07.2010, no service tax is required to be paid by them for the period in dispute which is prior to 21.06.2010. - Notification has been interpreted by this Tribunal in the case of M.P.Power Transmission Co. Ltd. (2011 (2) TMI 982 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) and later in the case of Noida Power Co.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Noida 2013 (8) TMI 746 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and the issue was decided in favour of the assessees - Besides, in view of the clarification issued by the Board, the Appellant are eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. In the result, the impugned Order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the services provided by the Appellant fall under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services, Erection, Commissioning, or Installation Services, and works contract services under the Finance Act, 1994?
2. Whether the Appellant is liable to pay Service Tax of Rs. 4,96,83,879 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with an imposed penalty under Section 78 of the said Act?
3. Whether the Notification No.45/2010 dated 20.07.2010 exempts the Appellant from paying service tax for the period in dispute related to transmission and distribution of electricity?

Analysis:
1. The Appellant was engaged in providing services related to transmission and distribution of electricity. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for Service Tax and imposed a penalty under the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant contended that the services provided were covered under the exemption specified in Notification No.45/2010 dated 20.07.2010, which directed that no service tax shall be required to be paid for taxable services related to transmission and distribution of electricity up to a certain period. The Appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions supporting their position.

2. The Appellant argued that the Notification exempted them from paying service tax for the disputed period. The Special Counsel for the Revenue referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that a Notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, would not eliminate the liability of pending proceedings against an assessee. However, the matter was referred to the CBEC for clarification. The OSD CBEC clarified that the Notification would be applicable to all pending cases related to the exemption under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. The Tribunal examined the Notification No.45/2010 and previous decisions interpreting it. The Tribunal found that the Appellant was engaged in providing services related to transmission and distribution of electricity during the disputed period. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal agreed that the Appellant was eligible for the benefit of the said Notification. Consequently, the impugned order demanding Service Tax and imposing a penalty was set aside, and the Appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed.