9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal No. HYD-SVTAX-000-COM-10-15-16 dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad confirming the demand of service tax against the appellant. Appeal No. ST/30359/2016 is filed by the Department against an Order-in-Original No. HYD-SVTAX-000-COM-26-15-16 dated 23.12.2015 dropping a demand on the same head for the subsequent period. 4. The appellant assessee is engaged in providing services relating to transmission of electrical energy by installing and erecting transmission towers. A show cause notice was issued to them demanding service tax on these services under the head of Erection, Commissioning or Installation services. It also demanded service tax on the services provided by the appellant to an SEZ where t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demands. The Department's appeal is against this order. 5. The assessee is engaged in providing services of Erection and Commissioning of towers to Andhra Pradesh Power Development Corporation and to M/s GMR Energy Limited. It is undisputed that the appellant is engaged in providing erection commissioning or installation of these towers. Notification No. 45/2010 -ST dated 27.02.2010 was issued by Government under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944 retrospectively exempting all taxable services related to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person to another person from payment of service tax. In the denovo Order-in-Original dated 28.09.2015 the Learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., but had not declared the rental income in their ST-3 returns and therefore there is a demand of Rs. 30,930/- along with interest confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. After examining the records, we find no reason to disagree with him. b) Two other demands of Rs. 9,25,218/- and Rs. 13,437/- both being CENVAT credits wrongly taken by the appellant assessee on improper documentation in violation of Rule 9 CCR, 2004. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they were not able to produce the documents before the Adjudicating Authority but they will be able to do so now. In view of the above, we find that the demand in so far as these two amounts is concerned, needs to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to examine t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IIC has to be treated as export of services in view of Section 2(m) read with Section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2006. No service tax can, therefore, be levied on such supply notwithstanding the fact that Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 did not provide for exemption as the services are deemed to have been exported. We, therefore, find that the demand on this count needs to be set aside. 7. In view of the above, we pass the following order: Revenue's appeal No. ST/30359/2016 is rejected and the impugned order is upheld. Assessess's appeal ST/30004/2016 is allowed partly as below. i) The demand of service tax on erection, commissioning and installation services is set aside. ii) The demand of service tax on services provided to SEZ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
