2016 (10) TMI 682 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - payment of service tax and sales tax on supply and installation of the said Fire Hydrant System - whether the refund clim justified on the ground that the sales tax has been paid by the assessee on the total amounts of the invoice clearly establishing that no services have been rendered by them - deposit made under the pressure of Revenue - non-existant entry - specified service under Section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - the decision in the case of Allengers Medical Systems Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh relied upon where it was held that where a person the goods and erection, commissioning and installation of the said sold equipments is treated as a part of the sale of excisable goods and when there is no evidence to show charging of paid amounts for erection and commissioning, such activities have to be held as incidental to delivery of goods to the customers. The appellant has paid sales tax on the entire value of the goods sold by them and the invoice raised by them also reveals only the sale of goods. In the purchase order also the reference is only to supply of goods and no part of the contract, requires the assessee to undertake the job of erection and commissioning etc. No value of the said services stand separately mentioned in the purchase order. N/N. 2/2003-ST - the value of the goods has to be taken out for the purpose of arriving at the value of services, if any. If the entire value of the goods stands taken out from the total contract value, nothing survives for the services, alleged to be supplied by the assessee. Rejection of refund claim not justified - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax for installation of Fire Hydrant System.
2. Refund claim by the appellant.
3. Interpretation of purchase order clauses regarding installation and commissioning.
4. Application of Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20th June, 2003.
5. Comparison with relevant case law regarding incidental services.

Analysis:

1. The issue in this case revolves around the liability of the appellant to pay service tax for the installation of a Fire Hydrant System. The Revenue contended that the appellant undertook installation work, making them liable for service tax. However, the appellant argued that they only supplied goods and not services, supported by the fact that they paid VAT on the total invoice amount.

2. The appellant filed a refund claim after depositing the tax under protest. The original Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim, but on appeal, the Commissioner observed that no services were provided by the appellant, as evidenced by the payment of sales tax on the invoice total. The Commissioner allowed the appeal, leading to the Revenue's current appeal.

3. The interpretation of the purchase order clauses regarding installation and commissioning was crucial. The Revenue argued that the clauses implied the appellant's responsibility for installation. However, a detailed analysis by the Tribunal revealed that the clauses only required the presence of technical persons during assembly, erection, and commissioning, with no direct obligation for the appellant to perform these activities.

4. The Tribunal considered the application of Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20th June, 2003, which requires deducting the value of goods supplied during service provision. The appellant argued that the total consideration received matched the total value of goods sold, indicating no separate consideration for services. This further supported the contention that no service tax liability existed.

5. The Tribunal referenced relevant case law, specifically the case of Allengers Medical Systems Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh, to support the argument that installation and commissioning activities can be considered incidental to the sale of goods when no separate consideration is shown. In this case, the appellant paid sales tax on the goods sold, and the purchase order only referenced the supply of goods, reinforcing the conclusion that no separate service tax liability existed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision that no service tax liability existed for the appellant. The detailed analysis of the purchase order clauses, application of relevant notifications, and comparison with case law supported this decision, highlighting the importance of clear contractual terms and documentation in determining tax liabilities.