9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T BANGALORE (LB)] before the respondent, at the time of adjudication - this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to go before the Assessing Officer and putforth their case, despite the fact that they have failed to place the decision - petition allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed infra). 7. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, a proposal was made to classify the nature of activity done by them as 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation services', by bringing the same under Section 65 (39a) of the Finance Act, 1994. Whereas, the petitioner, while submitting their reply, contended that, major portion of the contract involves erection, installation and commissioning of the pre-fabricated structures, like M.S.Pipes and RCC spun pipes and other structures for collection and conveying system, and also the erection and installation of machineries required for pumping station, and not much work of construction of civil structures are involved, excepting, very few structures like, manholes, etc, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gujarat. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that, mere pendency of the Appeal without an interim order is not a ground for the respondent to refuse to follow the decision of the Tribunal, and judicial discipline requires that the decision in the case of the M/s. Larsen and Tourbro Ltd., (supra) ought to have been followed. In support of such contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., reported in [(1991) 55 E.L.T. 433 (SC) ], wherein, it is held that, 'the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Larger Bench, in the case of Lanco Infratch Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad, reported in [(2015) 38 S.T.R. 709 (Tri. Bangalore) and held as follows :- " The second aspect is that, if there is no dipsute about the nature of the activity carried on, whether the assessee would be liable to pay service tax or not. 9. It is seen that, with effect from 16.06.2005, the definition of the expression, " commissioning or installation of construction serfice'' under Section 65 (25b) was amended to include the construction of a pipeline or conduit. Therefore, after 16.06.2005, there was no dispute. Consequently, the Department cannot now raise a question as to the very nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board to supply water. It was an activity in public interest, to take care of the civic amenities liable to be provided by the State. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding in favour of the assessee. Hence, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee." 11. Unfortunately, in the instant case, the petitioner/assessee did not place the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Tiruchirappalli Vs. Indian Humes Pipes Co. Ltd. (supra) nor the decision in the case of Lanco Infratch Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad (supra) before the respondent, at the time of adjudication. However, prima fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
