TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Tribunal grants stay & relief in EPC project appeal, interpreting tax laws & contractor's role.</h1> <h3>RM Mohite & Co-Bhooratnam (JV) Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-I</h3> RM Mohite & Co-Bhooratnam (JV) Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-I - 2015 (38) S.T.R. ... Issues:Classification of service under 'Works Contract Service'Applicability of extended period for tax demandInterpretation of Circular No. 116/10/2009-STEntitlement to relief in case of EPC projectsPrima facie case for complete waiver of pre-depositClassification of service under 'Works Contract Service':The appellant, engaged in construction activities, undertook excavation work on EPC basis. The service tax demanded was based on the classification under 'Works Contract Service.' The appellant argued for a stay, citing a previous case where the extended period was not invoked. The AR contended that for EPC contracts, the work not being executed for the Government is irrelevant, referring to a different case for support.Applicability of extended period for tax demand:The AR argued that the project being a turnkey one, the work not being executed for the Government does not matter. The definition of 'taxable service' under Section 65 (105) (zzzza) excludes works contracts related to dams. The AR referred to a circular exempting works related to irrigation projects when undertaken by the Government, but the Tribunal did not accept this interpretation, emphasizing that contractors usually execute such works.Interpretation of Circular No. 116/10/2009-ST:The AR's argument that the circular exemption applies only when the Government executes the project was not accepted by the Tribunal. They highlighted that contractors, not the Government, typically carry out such projects. The appellant cited a case where the Tribunal found the extended period applicable due to a partner's tax payment in a similar project, indicating lack of bona fide belief regarding tax liability.Entitlement to relief in case of EPC projects:The Tribunal considered the appellant's case for a complete waiver, referencing previous decisions and the lack of clarity regarding tax liability. They granted a stay against recovery during the appeal's pendency, acknowledging a prima facie case for relief.This judgment delves into the classification of services under 'Works Contract Service,' the applicability of the extended period for tax demands, the interpretation of circulars related to exemptions, entitlement to relief in EPC projects, and the criteria for a complete waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal analyzed various legal precedents and interpretations to determine the appellant's eligibility for relief and the stay against recovery during the appeal process.
TaxTMI 