9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct involving transfer of goods as well as rendering of service. Further, the appellants are also paying sales tax/VAT under the Kerala Sales Tax/Kerala VAT on the activities in dispute. Once the appellant is rendering the Works Contract Service, then in view of the settled law in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] , no service tax is leviable on Works Contract Service for the period prior to 01.06.2007 and in the present case the entire period is prior to 01.06.2007 and therefore by following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro, appellant is not liable to pay any service tax. Appeal allowed - decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 09.05.2007 was issued to the appellant on the following grounds: (a) On scrutiny of the Contracts entered by the appellant with different clients it was seen that the nature of the contracts involved such services as re-tubing of Air pre heater, replacement of conveyor structural, re-tubing of evaporated tubes, fabrication, erecting, testing and commissioning of fire water system, commissioning services, installation service etc. (b) The contracts contain only consolidated amounts giving no separate account for distinct work. (c) The appellant was not only providing the services of erection but also the services of commissioning and installation. Therefore, the services provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice and after following the due process, Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 18.06.2008 and confirmed the demand along with interest and penalties. 2. Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the documents and also gone through the decisions referred during the course of arguments. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the activity carried out by the appellant falls under the taxable category of works contract service and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been violated. He further submitted that the appellants were registered contractors of the Kerala State authorities and also had paid sales tax/VAT under Kerala Sales Tax Act/Kerala VAT Act on the activities in dispute. The first condition of the definition of Works Contract Service is therefore satisfied. It is his further submission that the second condition stipulates that the contract should be for one of the services indicated in the list. The explanation inter alia contains analysis which states that if the contract is for erection, commissioning, installation of plant and machinery or a part thereof, primarily for the purpose of commercial or industry then the same would be liable to works contract tax whereas in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am 2019 (3) TMI 711 CESTAT Hyderabad b. Marine Corporation of India Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam 2019 (2) TMI 771 CESTAT Hyderabad c. G.N. Buildev Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2019 (2) TMI 1176 CESTAT New Delhi d. Deva Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CGST, Chennai 2019 (1) TMI 1432 CESTAT Chennai 3.1. Another argument of the appellant is that the activity of erection of plants, structures, machinery cannot be taxed prior to its insertion in the definition of taxable service . He further submitted that Commissioning and installation was brought under service tax net w.e.f. 01.07.2003. The activity of erection was included in the definition only w.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 2010 (19) S.T.R. 361 (Tri.-Ahmd.) . Learned counsel also submitted that substantial demand is barred by limitation because the period for which the demand has been confirmed is 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006 by invoking the extended period of limitation and the show-cause notice was issued on 09.05.2007. Hence, the entire period except October 2005 to March 2006 is beyond the normal period. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order.. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the present case there is no dispute that the works undertaken by the appellant was for fabrication, supply of material, installation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
