9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal noted that laying of pipelines for water supply projects would come under the "construction service" and since only commercial construction is liable to service tax and the pipelines for water supply are not commercial activities, the same would not be taxable. Thus, it may be seen that this Tribunal has consistently been holding the view that the activity of laying of pipelines would not come within the purview of "erection, commissioning and installation service" and it would be more appropriate classifiable under "Commercial or industrial construction service". laying of pipelines would not come within the category of "erection, commissioning and installation service" and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law - Following decision of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. [2013 (11) TMI 917 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/146 & 152/10 - Final Order Nos. A/1433-1434/2014-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 14-8-2014 - P R Chandrasekharan and Ramesh Nair, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri. K. S. Mishra, Addl. Comm. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri. P.P. Shah, CA Shri Prakash Shah, Adv JUDGEMENT Per: P R Chandrasekharan: 1. Bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner to calculate the admissible abatement under Notification No. 1/06 dated 01/03/2006 as per the documentary evidences for the period from March 2006 to March 2007. Interest on the service tax confirmed was demanded under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 @ ₹ 100/- every day during which the assessee failed to pay the service tax was imposed till 17/04/2006 and with effect from 18/04/2006, the penalty was imposed @ ₹ 200/- per day for failure of payment of service tax subject to the overall ceiling of service tax demanded i.e. ₹ 7,62,26,257/-. The Ld. Commissioner further imposed a penalty of ₹ 8.00 crores on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act for not paying the tax by suppressing the fact with intent to evade the same. The appellants are before us against the impugned order. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in an identical set of circumstances in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy, reported in 2008 (12) STR 363 (Tri-Chennai), this Tribunal had held that laying of pipes for use in water supply projects will not come under the category of erection, commissioning and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein it has been clarified that if an activity does not result in emergence of erected, installed and commissioned plant, machinery, equipment or structure or does not result in installation of an electrical or electronic device, the same is outside the purview of erection, commissioning and installation service. In the case cited supra, it has been clearly held that laying of pipeline will not amount to commissioning of a plant, machinery of equipment or structure and, therefore, the activity undertaken by the client does not come under the category of erection, commissioning and installation service. In the case cited supra, it has been clearly held that laying of pipeline will not amount to commissioning of a plant, machinery or equipment or structure and, therefore, the activity undertaken by the client does not come under the category of erection, commissioning and installation service. 3.2 The learned Counsel also relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot Vs. PSL Ltd. - 2013 (31) STR 570 (Tri-Ahmed) wherein it was held that laying of separate pipelines or laying of coated pipes for water supply projects would not come within the purview of erection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x is liable to be paid on such service even though the whole service may come under the category of works contract service after 01/06/2007. In the light of these submissions, the Ld. JCDR submits that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 4.1 The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Hume Pipes Company has been appealed against by the department before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the appeal of the department has been admitted. Therefore, the said decision is in jeopardy and hence, reliance cannot be placed on the said decision by the appellant to canvas its case. However, he fairly concedes that no stay has been obtained against the decision from the Hon'ble Bombay high Court. He further submits that as regards the direction of the adjudicating authority to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to provide abatement in terms of Notification No. 01/06 dated 01/03/2006, the demand has been made on the value inclusive of the materials inasmuch as the appellant failed to furnish the required data with supporting evidences and therefore, the entire contract value sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
