2017 (1) TMI 1385 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, excluding service tax on composite contracts for railways

CCE, Jaipur-I Versus M.M. Constructions, Kiran Udyog (Kiran Infra Engs. Ltd.) And Kiran Infra Enggs., M.M. Constructions, Alcatel Portugal S.S. (Now known as Thales Portugal SA) Versus CCE, Jaipur/Delhi

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants/assessees, setting aside the service tax liability on composite contracts involving supply of materials and ... Works contract - the confirmation of demands under “erection, installation and commissioning services” is on the ground that there is an identifiable component of service as per the contract - Held that: - there can be no tax liability on such contracts prior to 1.6.2007, on which date the new tax entry “Works Contract Service” was introduced in the FA, 1994. For the period post 1.6.2007, the services rendered to railways were excluded from the scope of the service tax liability under “Works Contract Service”. The exclusion is with reference to works contract in respect of, among other things, railways, bridges, etc. - “Works Contract Service” provided to Indian Railways as well as DMRC are excluded for tax liability - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Confirmation of service tax demand for activities related to designing, manufacturing, supplying, installation, testing, commissioning of train control, signaling, and telecommunication systems for Indian Railways/DMRC.2. Finding in the impugned orders dropping demands on construction activities undertaken for railways.Analysis:1. The appeals involved confirmation of service tax demand for activities related to designing, manufacturing, supplying, installation, testing, commissioning of train control, signaling, and telecommunication systems for Indian Railways/DMRC. The contracts were composite in nature, involving both supply of materials and provision of services. The service tax liability was confirmed under categories like 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service' and 'Consulting Engineering Service.' The Original Authority considered the contracts divisible based on the amount charged for services and goods separately. However, the legal position, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd., clarified that there is no tax liability on composite contracts. The Tribunal set aside the service tax liability, stating that no tax liability arises for such composite contracts pre and post the introduction of the tax entry for 'Works Contract Service.'2. The impugned orders dropped the demands on construction activities undertaken for railways. The contracts involved both supply of materials and provision of services. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. was applied, stating that there is no tax liability on composite contracts. The services rendered to railways were excluded from the scope of service tax liability under 'Works Contract Service.' The Tribunal referred to previous decisions to support the exclusion of 'Works Contract Service' provided to Indian Railways and DMRC from tax liability. Consequently, the impugned orders confirming service tax liability on the appellants/assessees were set aside, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed based on the same legal grounds.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants/assessees, setting aside the service tax liability on composite contracts involving supply of materials and provision of services for Indian Railways/DMRC. The judgment was based on the legal position established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the exclusion of such services from tax liability under 'Works Contract Service.'