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 appellant. It found that the installation of street lights, although related to road construction, did not change the classification. The Tribunal also set aside the demand for the extended period due to the appellant's declaration of exempted service value in the ST-3 return, emphasizing the importance of accurate value declarations to avoid limitations on demands. The appellant's argument of the order exceeding the show cause notice's scope was rejected, and the ROM application was partly allowed based on these findings.

---

---

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.

---