Pipeline laying and commissioning treated as taxable installation service; extended limitation upheld for non-payment.

Pipeline laying and commissioning work was treated as falling within erection, commissioning or installation service because the statutory definition covered plumbing, drain laying and other installation for transport of fluids. The appellant's activities of designing, supplying, laying, cutting, joining, testing and commissioning the pipeline therefore attracted service tax on the taxable balance value, even after the abatement allowed under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. The non-payment of tax was treated as suppression, so invocation of the extended period of limitation was upheld. The appeal failed, and the service tax demand, interest and penalty on the balance taxable value survived.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's activity of laying and commissioning pipeline was classifiable as erection, commissioning or installation service and liable to service tax; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's activity of laying and commissioning pipeline was classifiable as erection, commissioning or installation service and liable to service tax.

Analysis: The definition of erection, commissioning or installation service, as considered by the Tribunal, specifically included plumbing, drain laying, and other installation for transport of fluids. The appellant's contract involved designing, supplying, laying, cutting, joining, testing, and commissioning of pipeline work, which fell within that statutory description. The abatement already allowed under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. did not alter the liability on the remaining taxable value.

Conclusion: The activity was covered by the taxable service and the demand of service tax on the balance value was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified.

Analysis: Since the activity was expressly covered by the service definition, non-payment of tax was treated as suppression leading to evasion. On that basis, the longer limitation period was held applicable.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety and the service tax demand, interest, and penalty on the balance taxable value survived.

Ratio Decidendi: Pipeline laying and commissioning work falling within plumbing or drain laying for transport of fluids is taxable as erection, commissioning or installation service, and non-payment of such tax constitutes suppression justifying the extended period.

---