TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Service Tax Liability Dismissed by Tribunal for Erection/Commissioning Services</h1> The Tribunal held that the respondents were not liable to pay service tax under Erection, Commissioning, or Installation service for the relevant period. ... Classification of service u/s 65 - whether respondents are chargeable to service tax u/s 65(28) & (29) for Erection, Commissioning or Installation service - Held that:- The metal Crash Barrier has been erected along road side for a specific purpose of road safety - the same qualifies the definition of equipments and attract Service Tax under the services of erection commissioning & equipments - erection service was brought into service tax net w.e.f 10.09.2004 - the demand was raised against the assesse for the period 23.10.2003 to 23.01.2004 - no fault in findings of the Commissioner (Appeal) that assesse were not chargeable to service tax – appeal decided against assesse Issues:Whether the respondents are chargeable to service tax under Erection, Commissioning, or Installation service.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise Meerut -I. The case involved M/s Advance Steel Tubes Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of metal crash barriers, post spacers, and w. beams. The respondents had entered into an agreement with contractors/sub-contractors of NHAI for providing guard rails alongside roads during a specific period. The Department contended that the services provided fell under Erection, Commissioning, or Installation services as defined under Section 65(29) of the Act. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The Order in Original was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeal), who allowed their appeal. The Revenue challenged this order in the present appeal.During the relevant period, the definitions of Commissioning or Installation and Commissioning and Installation agency were crucial. The original authority held that the activity of erecting metal crash barriers alongside roads for road safety purposes qualified as the erection of equipment, falling under the service tax net. However, since the demand was raised for a period before the inclusion of erection service in the service tax net, the Commissioner (Appeal) concluded that the respondents were not liable to pay service tax under Erection, Commissioning, or Installation service. Consequently, the Order in appeal was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the respondents were not chargeable to service tax under Erection, Commissioning, or Installation service for the specific period in question. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced on 17/07/2013.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
