9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant time. The activity of erection was not part of the statute for the period 01/7/2003 to 09/9/2004. The scope of the entry during the period 10/9/2004 to 15/6/2005 was also limited Reliance placed in the case of M/s Neo Structo Construction Ltd. Versus CCE & C Surat I and vice versa [2010 (3) TMI 252 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where the Tribunal has held that wherever fabrication of structures amounts to manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, in such cases no service tax can be demanded under the category of erection of plant, machinery or equipment as no civil work was undertaken - We find that this decision of the Tribunal is relevant to the present case. Demand of service tax is to be excluded wherever such fabricatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Shri Manish Gaur, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Ranjan Khanna, learned DR for the Revenue. 3. The ground of appeal, explained at length by the learned Counsel is mainly as follows :- (1) the authorities below have referred to and discussed a few work orders executed by the appellant and have come to the conclusion that the activities undertaken by the appellant were in the nature of erection, commissioning or installation service. They have submitted that the various work orders are of different nature and are primarily for fabrication of structures or for repair of such structures. Such services are not covered under the taxable entry Section 65 (105) (zzd), for the following reasons :- (a) the fabrication of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is that of erection, commissioning or installation service. She has also held that the activity of repairing undertaken by the appellant was a subordinate activity to the main activity and hence, would remain classified under the main one. Countering the argument of the appellant on the ground of time bar, the learned DR submitted that the conduct of the appellant is evident from the fact that they chose not appear before the Investigating Officer even after receipt of 5 summons issued during the investigation. The conduct of the appellant reveals their intention to evade payment of service tax by consciously not providing the information sought for by the Revenue. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from the receiver of the service. We find that in the original order the Adjudicating Authority has recorded in para 4.4 that she has examined each and every contract/agreement and has come to the conclusion that the activity carried out would be classified under erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery or equipments. She has also reproduced, selectively, a view work orders. From a perusal of this chart figuring in para 4.4 of the order-in-original we find that many of the activities refer to fabrication and erection of structure. We have perused the copies of some job orders enclosed with the appeal. We note that many of the job orders are for carrying out repair and replacement. 8. We have already noted that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
