9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Finance Act, 1994 on these services. During the disputed period 2007-2008 to 2010-2011, the appellant was engaged in the work of execution of contract for the electrification of villages under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY). Accordingly, Works Contract dated 14 November 2005 was entered by the appellant with Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL), (an undertaking of Government of Uttaranchal) for the work of description "Turnkey Execution of the work of Route Survey, Design, Supply, Erection, Testing, commissioning of material, Equipment required for electrification of villages of and their households on "Turnkey Basis" BAGESHWAR PACKAGE in state of Uttaranchal under Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply and erection of single steel tubular pole (410-SP-10) 8.5 m long 14. Supply and stringing of LT Aerial Bunched cables 3x16+25sqmm Aluminum alloy with necessary accessories 15. Supply and stringing of LT Aerial Bunched cables 3x16+25sqmm Aluminum alloy with necessary accessories 16. Providing BPL Connection. Under the above 16 activities, each of the activity is broadly divided into two parts. The first part deals with exclusive sale of electronic/electric equipment's, wires, poles etc. on which no service tax demand has been raised. The dispute is related to the second part of the activities which deals with erection services of the specified materials as stated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Sl. No. 12 of the above table, whereas the contention of the department is that service tax is required to be paid on all the elements at Sl. No. 8 to 12 of the above table i.e. "Concreting poles", "earthing", "concreting of stay", "cartage charges" along with "Erection charges" in the gross value of taxable services of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services, which together constitute an amount of Rs. 3210.00 in the above representative invoice. In this way the cumulative short payment of service tax has been worked out Rs. 50,98,026/- for the period 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 and accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25/10/2011 had been issued to the appellant. The show cause notice got adjudicated vide order-in-original No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty provided by a person (hereinafter called 'the service provider') to any other person (hereinafter called 'the service receiver'), and that all such services were liable to service tax under the said Finance Act, which were not being levied according to the said practice during the period up to 26th day of February, 2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity, and the period up to 21st day of June, 2010 for all taxable services relating to distribution of electricity; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the said Finance Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the service tax payable on said taxable servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; 5. It has further been argued that the whole contract amounted to a works contract as has been incorporated in the Finance Act, 1994 as a different service with effect from 1 June 2007 and was not covered under the category erection, commissioning and installation services (simplicitor) and no demand has been issued to the appellants under the Works Contract service, hence the demand is not maintainable. It has further been submitted that whether the contracts entered by the party is divisible or indivisible contracts, depends upon the terms of the contract. The terms of the agreement are the decisive factor to understand the divisibility of the contract. In the present case, the contract dated 14 November 2005 is a composit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. cited above. In the above case the Tribunal after examining the above mentioned Notifications Nos. 45/2010-ST and 32/2010-ST held as under :- "Thus, the service tax payable on all services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service recipient is not required to be paid. We have seen the related contracts entered by the appellant with M/s. UPCL. It is evident from there that the service rendered by the appellant is squarely relating to transmission and distribution of electricity and therefore in the light of the Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20 July 2010 no service tax is recoverable in respect thereof. Indeed CESTAT in the case of NOIDA P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
