9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been paid on the gross value of the purchase order for crane, including Erection/commissioning charges and transport etc. That the Appellant during the material period supplied two cranes to M/s. M/s. Lucina Land Development Ltd and M/s. Supertech Ltd under purchase order No. 3266000471 dated. 05.02.2011 and order No. 4700002996 dated. 03.07.2010 respectively, under obligation to manufacture, transport, deliver, erect and installation of cranes at the buyer's premises. The Appellant asserts that it had also discharged Excise duty and sales tax on the total sales value which included the erection, installation and commissioning of such cranes. It is a finding recorded in the abovementioned OIO dt.9.1.16 that the Appellant had recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely upon the impugned decision which is Order-In-Appeal and on various judgments relied therein to indicate that the service tax is chargeable on any taxable service and the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service which in this case is Erection Commissioning of the crane including its transportation etc is taxable. Therefore the department was justified to tax the gross amount. On being asked to both sides to justify the stand in post L & T decision period which was reported in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS VS. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD AND OTHER-2015 (8) TMI 749 (S.C.). In which, it was pointed out that the composite contract could only be taxed under "Works Contract Services" w.e.f. period 01.06.2007 onwards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has observed in the case of Larsen & Toubro (supra) that works contract is a separate specie of contract known to the trade and commerce distinct from a contract for supply of goods or a contract for supply of services. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the contract in question is a composite works contract and could have been taxed only under the head of "Works Contract Services" post 01.06.2007. It is not in dispute that the entire period in question is post 01.06.2007. Therefore, the demand if any could have been raised under the Works Contract Service. The demand in this case has been made under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service. ECIS does not include the contract where transfer of mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
