2018 (11) TMI 917 - AT - Service Tax

Erection Commissioning and Installation of Lifts/Elevators/Escalators - appellant had paid service tax on 15% of the amount realized for the taxable services - appellant having not discharged the service tax liability for 33% of the amount realized, SCN is issued - Held that - Such contracts are clearly liable to tax only with effect from 01.06.2007 - demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Service tax liability for Erection Commissioning and Installation services under different categories; Validity of demand under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming demand, interest, and penalty; Interpretation of composite contracts involving supply of materials and services for tax liability; Application of law post the decision in CCE Vs. Larson & Toubro case.

Analysis:

Service Tax Liability and Demand:
The appellant, registered under various service tax categories, faced a demand for non-payment of service tax on 33% of the amount realized for Erection Commissioning and Installation services as per Notification No. 1/2006-ST. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the demand for a specific period but set aside part of the order concerning demand, interest, and penalty from a later date. The appellant contested this decision, leading to the current appeal.

Interpretation of Composite Contracts:
During the hearing, the appellant's advocate highlighted the issue of composite contracts involving the supply of materials and services, citing a previous decision by the CESTAT in the appellant's favor. Referring to Final Order No. 42921/2017, the Bench emphasized that such contracts are taxable only from a certain date based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the CCE Vs. Larson & Toubro case. The Bench noted that the Department failed to present any contradictory orders or higher forum judgments, leading to the decision to follow the previous ruling in the appellant's case and allow the appeal with consequential benefits.

Conclusion:
The judgment revolved around the service tax liability for specific services, the validity of the demand under relevant provisions, and the interpretation of composite contracts for tax purposes. By referencing past decisions and legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential benefits. The case underscores the importance of legal interpretation, precedent, and consistency in tax matters, ensuring fair treatment for taxpayers based on established legal principles.