9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Act, 1994 [The Act]. 2. M/s. Bhardwaj Construction and Electricals, Kota [The Appellant] is engaged in providing services to Nagar Nigam, Kota of labour supply for street light maintenance, laying cables, New light fittings on poles, erection of PCC/RCC Poles and drawing cables under various work orders, the details whereof are as under:- "(i) Labour supply for ARC street light maintenance (Work Order dated 3.8.2005 & 13.02.2007); (ii) Supply and installation of ARC PCC Poles and Cables (Work Order dated 20.08.2009); (iii) Installation of PCC Poles and ABC cables on annual rate contract (Work Order dated 6.9.2010); and (iv) Installation of submersible pumps on annual rate contract (Work Order dated 19.01.2011)" 3. The Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of taxes. Penalty under Section 78 was maintained and the appeal was, accordingly disposed of. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 5. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Jaya Kumari, Authorised Representative for the respondent and perused the records of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the services provided by the appellant to Nagar Nigam, Kota and Electricity Board were in the nature of providing civic amenities/facilities and, therefore, no service tax was payable on the value of the services. Learned counsel also relied on the provisions of the Article 243 W of the Constitution of India read with 12th Schedule of the Constitution of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under 3 categories, i.e. 'Manpower, Recruitment and Supply Agency' as defined under Section 65(68),'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service' as defined under Section 65(64) and 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service' defined under Section 65(39a) of the Act. The decision in O.P. Khinchi (supra) is not applicable as from the order, it does not appear that the party had not cooperated or the show cause notice has been issued in the absence of the documents by the appellant. 9. We may now deal with the submissions of the learned counsel that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error in changing the classification as confirmed by the order-in-original. The Adjudicating Authority had classified the services of execution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in relation to the Work Orders dated 3.8.2005 and 13.02.2007 within the purview of ''Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service" and remand the issue of classification to be reconsidered as referred above. 10. With reference to Work Orders dated 20.08.2009 and 06.09.2010 for installation of PCC Poles and ABC Cables, etc., the Adjudicating Authority had classified the services to be taxable under Section 65(105)(zz) as "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services" defined under Section 65(39a) of the Act. Referring to the provisions of CBEC Circular No.332/5/2010-TRU dated 24.05.2010, however, the Commissioner has not recorded any finding thereto. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to the said circular has pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 'Construction of Complex' service [Section 65(105)(zzq)(zzh)], as the case may be. 7. Installation of street lights, traffic lights, flood lights or other electrical and electronic appliances/devices or providing electric connections to them. Taxable service, namely 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation' services [Section 65(105)(zzd)] 8. Railway electrification, electrification along the railway track. Not a taxable service under any clause of sub-section (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. 11. We are of the opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) may also examine the issue of taxability of the services rendered with reference to the Work Orders dated 20.08.2009 and 06.09.2010 with reference to the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II - 2016 (331) ELT 504 (Tri.-Chennai), where it was held held that the assessee was under bonafide belief that mere cutting, welding of steel pipes and sheets did not amount to manufacture as no new commodity emerges and there was no marketability and therefore would attract excise duty. In the circumstances, the demand was held to be hit by limitation. The Tribunal further observed that the concept of bonafide belief is not unknown in the taxation laws and the assessee has to be given benefit in the facts and circumstances of the case where bonafide belief can be on variant account. We therefore, hold that the invocation of the extended period in the present case is not justified in the absence of any strong allegation or positive act, po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
