2018 (4) TMI 845 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal classifies contract as works contract service, no Service Tax before 01.06.2007. Legal precedent supports ruling.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the contract should be classified under works contract service. No Service Tax liability ... Erection, commissioning or installation service - contract for design, manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of “trade control and signalling and telecommunication system” to a consortium, comprising of Siemens AG transportation Systems, Germany and the Indian Company, namely, Siemens Ltd. - Held that: - the contract awarded by the appellant is composite contract, involving both supply of material and for execution of the assigned job. Thus, as per the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Larsen & Toubro [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT], such activities should be taxable under the category of works contract service. Since, such service was brought into the tax net w.e.f. 01.06.2007, the appellant cannot be taxed under any other category of service prior to such date - Since the appellant admittedly provide works contract service and the definition of works contract service specifically excludes railway from its purview for levy of Service Tax, the activities provided pursuant to the contract even after 01.06.2007 cannot be taxed under the work contract service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Classification of services under a composite works contract service and tax liability prior to 01.06.2007.Analysis:The appeal challenged an order by the Commissioner (Adjudication) regarding the tax treatment of a contract awarded for the design, manufacture, and installation of a signaling and telecommunication system. The Revenue interpreted the activities under the contract as falling under the taxable category of erection, commissioning, or installation service. The appellant argued that the contract was a composite works contract service involving both supply of goods and execution of tasks, thus should be classified under works contract service. The appellant contended that services provided should not be taxed before 01.06.2007 when works contract service was brought into the tax net. Additionally, the appellant claimed that works executed in relation to railway projects should be excluded from Service Tax levy. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision to support their position.The Tribunal considered the nature of the contract as a composite one involving both material supply and job execution. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal determined that such activities should be taxable under works contract service, which was introduced into the tax net from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal held that the appellant cannot be taxed under any other service category before this date. Furthermore, the definition of works contract service specifically excluded railways from its purview for Service Tax levy. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal concluded that in a similar situation, Service Tax liability cannot be imposed on the appellant under works contract service. The Tribunal highlighted that contracts for services to railways are excluded from works contract service tax liability. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the contract in question should be classified under works contract service and that no Service Tax liability could be imposed prior to 01.06.2007. The decision was based on the composite nature of the contract, the exclusion of railway projects from works contract service taxation, and the legal precedent established by previous Tribunal and Supreme Court judgments.