9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Construction' Services. Further, lying of long-distance gas pipeline can only be considered as a 'Works Contract service'. Moreover, abatement was denied by the original authority on the ground that some of the goods are supplied by the main contractor. The issue of inclusion of the value of free supply material in the taxable value is covered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [ 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT] - in this case the period involved is 01.06.2005 to 30.09.2006. As per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] , the activity of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,857/- for the period from 16.06.2005 to 25.09.2006, in addition to the service tax paid by them for the other activities undertaken during the relevant period. Thereafter considering the Board Circular No. 58/7/2003-ST dated 20.05.2003, the adjudication authority partially allowed the request for adjusting the service tax paid by them under the wrong service category. However, the adjudication authority vide Order-in-Original No. 51/2008 dated 22.08.2008 did not allow the abatement of 67% sought for rendering the service and confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,88,062/- as Service Tax and Rs. 3,757/- as Education Cess payable by the appellant under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service' for the period from 01.01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 was filed by the appellant before this Tribunal. 3. The dispute in both the Appeals is on the same activity of the appellant, hence they are taken up for a decision by this order. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant during the hearing drew our attention to the Order-in-Original, wherein adjudication authority rejected the claim of the appellant for abatement on the ground that the appellant has not included the value of free supply material in the taxable value. Thus, the service rendered by the appellant is 'Works Contract' Service involving services as well as supply of material. The issue was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Larsen and Toubro Ltd., and it was categorically held that before 01.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (10) - GSTL 118 (SC) , M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (12) TMI 624-CESTAT Bangalore. 6. As regards the demand under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or installation Service', the learned counsel submitted that the appellant was constructing petrol/diesel storage tanks at the petrol pumps and by no stretch of imagination can be considered as a Commissioning and Installation Agency Service as neither there is installation or commissioning of any machinery or equipment nor is the appellant a Commissioning and Installation Agency. Appellant also relied on the decision in the matter of M/s. Subhash Khandelwal Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I, 2011 (8) TMI 41 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or pre-commissioning of petrol pump. The definition of commissioning and installation reveals that the same takes into ambit the services provided in relation to commissioning or installation of plant and machinery or equipment and not completing the job for pre-commissioning. Inasmuch admittedly the appellants have done civil construction necessary for a petrol pump where the machines have to be installed, it cannot be said that they have themselves undertaken the services falling under the category of commissioning and installation. As such, the confirmation of service tax against them is neither justified nor warranted. 6. The learned counsel submitted that as regards the demand for laying of underground and overhead optical fibre cable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority has considered the payments made by the appellant for each service rendered by them during the relevant period and after considering the same held that the show-cause notice simply gives a narration of the payments received by them on various counts as detailed above, arrived at the total service tax and education cess payable thereon and deducted the total Service Tax and Education Cess paid by them by not taking into account the Service Tax and Education Cess paid by them for the different services and arbitrarily made demand without considering the above payments . 7. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the Order-in-Appeal and the Order-in-Review. 8. Heard both sides and perused th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
