2019 (5) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant under the Works Contract Service because the Show Cause Notice that was issued to the appellant was under Erection, Commissioning or Installation service. The impugned order that seeks to recover service tax for the service rendered by the appellant under Erection Commissioning or Installation service prior to 1 June 2007 and Works Contract Service after 1 June 2007 cannot, therefore, be sustained - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Himanshu Bansal, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Vivek Pandey, DR - for the respondent ORDER Per Justice Dilip Gupta: This appeal is directed against the order dated 31 March, 2014 by which the learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed as a Commissioning or Installation agency. The notice, therefore, called upon by the appellant to show cause within 30 days as to why service tax should not be recovered with interest and penalty. 3. The appellant submitted a detailed reply dated 20 October, 2010 contending that the activities were mainly related to widening of Highways and electrification along road side which were not taxable as per the Board Circular dated 24 May, 2010. 4. The adjudicating authority examined whether the services provided by the appellant during the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March, 2010 would be covered under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation service or any other service, according to the nature of work undertaken by the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and that prior to 1 June 2007, the service rendered by the appellant was in the nature of Erection, Commissioning or Installation service. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The adjudicating authority has found as a fact that the service rendered by the appellant fell under the category of Works Contract Service as the contracts were for service and supply of goods. The nature of service could not, therefore, fall under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service prior to 1 June 2007. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Vs. reported in 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) observed that Works Contract Service was not a taxable ser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X