Appellant granted partial tax exemption on electricity transmission tower services under Notification No.45/2010-ST.

The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No.45/2010-ST for service tax on services related to electricity transmission tower erection. The appellant's demand for tax was partially accepted, ruling that the exemption applied only to the unpaid amount, denying a refund for the amount already paid. The Tribunal set aside the demand for the balance tax amount, interest, and penalty, ultimately disposing of the appeal and resolving the stay application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.45/2010-ST for service tax on services related to electricity transmission tower erection.
2. Applicability of exemption to the appellant's case.
3. Refund of tax already paid by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the eligibility of the appellant for an exemption under Notification No.45/2010-ST concerning service tax on services related to the erection of electricity transmission towers. The appellant provided services for facilitating the erection of such towers for TNEB, leading to a demand of &8377; 1,84,000 for the period 2006-07 & 2007-08 under the category of "Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services."

2. The appellant argued that the Central Government's notification directed that service tax payable on taxable services related to transmission and distribution of electricity need not be paid for a specific period. The Tribunal observed that the claim could have been raised earlier during the show cause notice stage to enable investigation. However, it was acknowledged that the appellant rendered services for the transmission tower, making them eligible for the exemption. The Revenue had already received a portion of the demand, and the Tribunal ruled that the exemption applied only to the unpaid amount related to the electricity transmission tower services, thus denying a refund for the amount already paid.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Notification No.45/2010-ST, and the demand for the balance tax amount, interest, and penalty was set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and the stay application was also resolved. The judgment clarified the application of the exemption notification in the appellant's case and the implications for the refund of the tax amount already paid, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues at hand.

---