Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (3) TMI 1457

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the part of the appellant and they have not concealed information or made any misstatement of facts before the Revenue. At the very first instance, the proprietor of the appellant has deposited the admitted tax liability and the issue being wholly interpretational, extended period of limitation is not attracted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Abhinav Kalra (C.A.), for the Appellant(s) Shri D.K. Deb Asst.Commr. (AR), for the Department ORDER The appellant, a contractor executing laying of cables under or alongside the road doing internal and external electrification, is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 27-04-2012, by which the Order-in-Original was confirmed demanding Service Tax of ₹ 24,92,001/- for the extended period October, 2005 to September, 2010, further the penalty was imposed of ₹ 10,000/- under Sections 68, 69 & 70 of the Finance Act read with Section 77 of the Act and ₹ 24,92,001/- was imposed as penalty under Section 78 of the Act along with interest at appropriate rate. 2. The brief facts of the case are that as per Show Cause Notice dated 15-04-2011, the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmitted. He stated that all the contract undertaken by him are not covered under the Service Tax net. Further, the appellant submitted the copies of contracts wise and work wise details of payment received along with the copies of T.D.S. certificate issued by the clients. Upon scrutiny of these documents and details thereof, Show Cause Notice had been issued for a consolidated amount of ₹ 24,92,001/- towards Service Tax short paid under the category, (i) Renting of the Immoveable Property Service, (ii) Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service, (iii) Works Contract Service & (iv) Construction of Residential Complex Service, etc. for the period October, 2005 to September,2010 as per details in Annexure-A to the Show Cause Notice. 4. The appellant contested the Show Cause Notice and filed their defence reply wherein it was contended that their principal or contractor is Noida Authority, Greater Noida Authority, Indian Railway Welfare Organization, are not defined as person in the Service Tax Act and accordingly the work awarded by them is not taxable. It was further contended that they have neither constructed any complex either commercial or residential and as such no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is urged that tax in dispute of ₹ 15,48599/-, is fit to be set aside as the same is not taxable in view of Board's Circular No. 123/5/2010- TRU, wherein at para 2 - (ii), it has been clarified that under Erection Commissioning or Installation Service, if an activity does not result in emergence of an erected, installed and commissioned plant, machinery, equipment or structure or does not result in installation of an electrical or electronic device (i.e. machine or equipment that uses electricity to perform some other function) the same is outside purview of taxable service of ECIS. Further, in Para (iii) by C.B.E.C. Circular a table have been given and explaining the tax status of the activities wherein at Serial No. (1) Laying of cables under/alongside road have been stated as not a taxable activity. So far the internal and external electrification done for Noida Authority or Greater Noida Authority, involves disputed tax of ₹ 58,89,91/-. It is urged by the ld. Counsel, that the demand has been raised alleging 'construction of commercial/residential complex'. The said demand is fit to be set aside as there is no finding of any construction of a complex being resident .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue claimed that the service of commissioning and installation was brought under the Service Tax payable with effect from 01-07-2003, but the assessee started paying tax with effect from December,2004 and the Show Cause Notice was issued dated 01-11-2006, for the extended period. It was held that Revenue had not been able to prove that the work done by assessee amounted to installation of plant and machinery, further notice was taken of C.B.E.C Circular dated 21-08-2003, which clarified electrical wiring in residential premises is not covered, indicating non-taxability of incidental services, laying pipe in wall/roof/floor or for crossing wires, fixing junction, fixing cable trays to lay cables, digging trays to lay cables and digging earth pits for earthing box not amounting to installation of plant, commissioning of machinery or equipment and hence Service Tax was not leviable. Accordingly, the appellant prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 8. The ld. A.R. for Revenue relies on the impugned order. Further, referring from para 4, of impugned order, he states that some of the work in the nature of - External Electrical Development of Sector, the work relating .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates