9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat:- Similar issue came up before the Bench in the case of Neo Structo Construction Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 252 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - After analysing the definition of Erection, Commissioning and Installation services, pre and post 01.05.2006, and also considering the Board’s Circular No. 334/4/2006-TRU dated 28.02.2006, the Bench held that erection of fabricated and prefabricated structure will be covered under the heading of ECIS only after 01.05.2006. The said ratio is directly applicable in the case in hand as the period involved in this case is prior to 01.05.2006. Accordingly, there cannot be any demand on the appellant under ECIS. The demands confirmed by the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - Appeal No. ST/1663/2011 - A/31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating authority, after following due process of law, dismissed the contentions of the appellant and confirmed the demands raised along with interest and imposed penalties. 3. Learned counsel would draw our attention to the records and submit that demand is based upon the amount which is billed by the appellant for erection of towers under ECIS and CICS. On ECIS it is his submission that the period involved is prior to 01.05.2006 wherein the definition of ECIS would not cover activity undertaken by the appellant as the structures were not included in the definition. He submits this view is taken by the Tribunal in the case of Neo Structo Construction Ltd [2010 (19) STR 361] wherein the Bench has held that Erection, Commissioning and Inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demands on ECIS and CICS. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that as regards the demands raised under Commercial or Industrial Construction services, we find that the demand is for the period prior to 01.06.2007 and there being no dispute as to the fact that all the contracts were composite contracts for supply of materials and services, we hold that law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd (supra) would apply directly in the case in hand and accordingly, the demands confirmed under CICS are liable to be set aside and we do so. 6. As regards demands raised under category of ECIS, we find that the demands have been raised on the ground that appellant herein has entered into contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
