2018 (6) TMI 9 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal classifies service as 'works contract,' emphasizes accurate value declarations to avoid limitations on demands.

The Tribunal upheld the classification of service under 'works contract service' instead of 'erection, installation and commissioning service' for the ... Rectification of mistake - scope of SCN - Classification of services - SCN was issued proposing classification of service under ‘works contract service’ whereas in the order-in-original, the same service was classified under the head of ‘erection, installation and commissioning service’ - time limitation - Held that:- Since the SCN proposed classification under works contract and the appellant also during the argument admittedly claimed the classification under works contract and claimed the benefit of installation of street light on the basis that it is related to road construction, the order passed on the basis of the submissions made by the appellant and the finding cannot be found fault with and the same cannot be said to be an apparent mistake in the order - the issue of classification being a question of law, can be entertained by this Tribunal. Therefore, our order on the issue of classification being under works contract service does not bear any error therein. Extended period of Limitation - Held that:- In the ST-3 return in the column of exempted service, the value of works contract service was declared. In this scenario, it cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed the fact - the demand for the extended period beyond normal period will not sustain. ROM Application allowed in part. Issues involved:Classification of service under 'works contract service' vs. 'erection, installation and commissioning service'; Allegation of order going beyond the scope of show cause notice; Issue of limitation in declaring works contract service value.Classification Issue Analysis:The appellant filed a ROM application challenging the classification of service under 'erection, installation and commissioning service' instead of 'works contract service' as proposed in the show cause notice. The appellant argued that the order exceeded the show cause notice's scope. However, the Tribunal upheld the classification under works contract service, noting that the installation of street lights, while related to road construction, does not alter the classification. The Revenue contended that works contract includes erection, commissioning, and installation services, and the classification should not change. The Tribunal found no fault in its classification decision, as the appellant had also claimed works contract service classification during arguments.Limitation Issue Analysis:Regarding the limitation issue, the appellant raised concerns about not declaring the value of works contract service in the ST-3 return for a specific period. The Deputy Commissioner argued that the appellant did declare the value of exempted service in the return, indicating no suppression of facts. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the demand for the extended period beyond the normal period. The ROM application was partly allowed based on these findings.The Tribunal's decision maintained the classification under works contract service and set aside the demand for the extended period due to the value declaration in the ST-3 return. The judgment emphasized that the installation of street lights, although related to road construction, did not alter the service classification. The appellant's argument regarding the order exceeding the show cause notice's scope was rejected. The decision highlighted the importance of accurately declaring service values in returns to avoid limitations on demands.