9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 - HELD THAT:- The taxable category Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services could only cover pure service contracts within its fold. It is observed that the Ld. Commissioner on one hand treats the separate work orders for sale/supply of goods and provision of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services as an indivisible EPC yet at the same time rejected the taxability thereof under the category, Works Contract Services which is clearly unsustainable in light of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] . The composite contracts in this case were divided into supply obligation and service obligation between the parties inter se for a pre-ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No.70247 of 2013 - FINAL ORDER NO.75436/2022 - Dated:- 4-8-2022 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Arvind Behati, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri A.Roy, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Service Tax Appeal No.70247/2013 is directed against Order-in-Original dated 23 November 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur, confirming a Service Tax demand of Rs.1,12,56,351/- along with interest and penalties on the Appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the undisputed facts of the case are that the Appellant was awarded separate work orders for sale/supply of goods and provision of Erection, Commissioning and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-ST dated 20 June 2003 in the hands of the Appellant on the purported ground that the recipient i.e. TSL had availed the benefit of Cenvat credit on the goods supplied. The Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the entire demand proposed in the SCN vide the Order-in-Original dated 23rd November 2012 along with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, which forms the subject matter of challenge in these proceedings. 3. The Ld.Chartered Accountant appearing for the Appellant has assailed the order dated 23rd November 2012 on the following alternative grounds: A . The work order for supply/sale of goods and provision of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services respectively, are separate an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the L T case reported in 2015 (39) STR 913 that EPC Contract could only be taxed under the taxable category Works Contract Services introduced with effect from 1 June 2007 and that the pre-existing category Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services could only cover service contracts simplicitor. Taxation of EPC contract under the works contract services has been specifically rejected by the adjudicating authority creating an apparent contradiction vis- -vis the charge in the SCN. Therefore, the demand cannot sustain on the point of incorrect classification alone. Reference in this regard is invited to the following decisions: (i) URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem - 2017 (50) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ports and reiterates the findings of the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned Order-in-Original dated 23rd November 2012. 5. Heard both side and carefully perused the appeal records. 6. We find that the issue involved in this case relates to alleged undervaluation of the taxable category, Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services on the purported ground of non-inclusion of the value of goods and material sold by the Appellant under the supply work order in valuing the said taxable services. At the outset, there is considerable merit in the contention of the Appellant that composite contracts involving supply of both goods and services could not have been taxed under the category, Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontracts within its fold. We observe that the Ld. Commissioner on one hand treats the separate work orders for sale/supply of goods and provision of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services as an indivisible EPC yet at the same time rejected the taxability thereof under the category, Works Contract Services which is clearly unsustainable in light of the L T case(supra). The ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal in Ajit India and URC Construction (supra) also supports the case of the Appellant on this point. 7. The issue can be looked at from another angle, as well. The composite contracts in this case were divided into supply obligation and service obligation between the parties inter se for a pre-agreed monetary considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
