2018 (9) TMI 86 - AT - Service Tax

Electric works with materials supply qualify as Works Contract Services under Section 65(105)(zzzza) not ECI Services

M/s. Arvindra Electricals Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Chandigarh

CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, ruling that services involving supply and installation of electric works, transmission lines, and street lighting ... Classification of services - Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services or Works Contract Services? - appellant provided services to various clients including M/s. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shri Guru Granth Sahib World University, M/s. H.P. Singh & Others, M/s. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, M/s. Punjab Small Scale Industries & Export Corporation Limited etc.re engaged in the supply and installation of electric works, laying/ shifting of High Transmission lines, street lightning system etc. Held that:- It is fact on record that the appellant has provided the services in question along with material. Therefore, the classification of the services is Works Contract as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro [2013 (9) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that any service provided along with material falls under the category of Works Contract, therefore, prior to 01.07.2012, the service tax liability is not sustainable against the appellant under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services’. For the period post 01.07.2012, in terms of exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the services provided to government organisations or a local authority, by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or any other business or profession was exempt from payment of duty. Admittedly, the appellant is providing the said services to government organisation namely M/s. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shri Guru Granth Sahib World University, M/s. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, M/s. Punjab Small Scale Industries & Export Corporation Limited are not engaged in any commerce, industry or any other business or profession. In that circumstance, in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the services provided to these organisations under contracts mentioned at Serial No 1 to 12 (except serial No. 2 and 3) are exempted from payment of duty. Works contract or Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services? - services provided to Guru Granth Sahib University and M/s. H P Singh - Held that:- The work was completed before the negative list regime and the service has been provided by the appellant along with goods - it merits classification of the said services under Works Contract - demand of service tax is not sustainable under ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services’. Time Limitation - Held that:- There is no specific allegation against the appellant that they have not paid the service tax with intent to evade payment of service tax. In fact, the appellant was providing services to the organisations which are not engaged in any commerce, industry or any other business or profession - extended period of limitation not invocable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions addressed by the Tribunal are:(a) Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the activities of erection, commissioning, or installation services provided by them during the period prior to 01.07.2012, considering the classification of such services under the pre-negative list regime.(b) Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on similar services provided post 01.07.2012 under the negative list regime, particularly when services were rendered to government or local authorities.(c) Whether the classification of the appellant's services should be under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' or under 'Works Contract Service' when the appellant supplies goods along with services.(d) Whether the exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 applies to the appellant's services rendered to government or local authorities post 01.07.2012.(e) Whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked in the absence of any allegation of fraud, collusion, or willful attempt to evade service tax by the appellant.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS(a) Liability for Service Tax Prior to 01.07.2012 - Classification of ServicesThe relevant legal framework includes the Finance Act, 1994, as it stood before 01.07.2012, and the classification principles established by judicial precedents, notably the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. State of Karnataka.The Court noted that prior to 01.07.2012, service tax was levied on specified taxable services and that the appellant was engaged in supplying electrical goods along with installation services. The Tribunal referred to the Apex Court's ruling which clarified that when services are provided along with goods, the transaction is to be classified as a 'Works Contract Service' rather than purely as 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'.The appellant contended that the demand confirmed under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' was erroneous as the correct classification for the period prior to 01.07.2012 should be 'Works Contract Service'. The Tribunal agreed with this contention, holding that the appellant's activities fell under the ambit of 'Works Contract Service' and that the demand of service tax under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' for the pre-01.07.2012 period was unsustainable.The appellant's submission was supported by documentary evidence including work contracts and completion certificates confirming that certain contracts were completed before the negative list regime commenced.(b) Liability for Service Tax Post 01.07.2012 - Applicability of Negative List Regime and ExemptionsWith effect from 01.07.2012, the service tax regime moved to a negative list system, under which all services except those specifically exempted or included in the negative list are taxable. Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, defines 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' as taxable services.The appellant provided services to various government and local authorities including Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Shri Guru Granth Sahib World University, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, and Punjab Small Scale Industries & Export Corporation Limited.The Tribunal examined Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, which grants exemption from service tax for services provided to government or local authorities by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of civil structures or other original works predominantly meant for use other than commerce, industry, or any other business or profession.It was held that the services rendered by the appellant to the above government organizations fall within the scope of this exemption because these entities are not engaged in commerce, industry, or any other business or profession. Consequently, the demand of service tax post 01.07.2012 on such services was found to be unsustainable.For the contracts executed for non-governmental organizations (Guru Granth Sahib University and M/s. H P Singh and others), the Tribunal noted that these works were completed before the negative list regime commenced, and as per the Larsen & Toubro precedent, classification under 'Works Contract Service' applies, negating the demand under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'.(c) Classification of Services - 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' versus 'Works Contract Service'The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correct classification of services for levy of service tax. The appellant's services involved supply of goods along with installation and commissioning services. The legal principle established by the Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro (supra) was applied, which holds that where services are provided along with goods, the transaction is to be classified as a 'Works Contract Service'.This classification impacts the taxability and the applicable exemptions. The Tribunal found that the appellant's services prior to 01.07.2012 fall under 'Works Contract Service' and not under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services', thereby invalidating the demand under the latter category for that period.(d) Application of Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012The Tribunal closely analyzed the applicability of the exemption notification which exempts services provided to government or local authorities for original works predominantly for use other than commerce, industry, or business.It was found that the appellant's services to the specified government entities fall squarely within the ambit of this exemption. The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation that these service recipients were not government authorities or that the works were for commercial or industrial use.Therefore, the exemption was held to apply, rendering the service tax demand on these contracts post 01.07.2012 unsustainable.(e) Invocation of Extended Period of LimitationThe extended period of limitation under service tax law can be invoked only in cases involving fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade payment of service tax.The appellant challenged the invocation of extended limitation, asserting absence of any such allegations in the show cause notice or adjudication order.The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that there was no specific allegation of fraud or collusion. Moreover, the appellant was providing services to government or local authorities, which are exempt or not liable for service tax under the relevant provisions.Consequently, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invokable in this case, and the demand based on extended limitation was unsustainable.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal's key legal findings and principles established include:'Any service provided along with material falls under the category of Works Contract, therefore, prior to 01.07.2012, the service tax liability is not sustainable against the appellant under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'.''In terms of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the services provided to government organisations or a local authority, by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or any other business or profession was exempt from payment of duty.''There is no specific allegation against the appellant that they have not paid the service tax with intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable.'On the basis of these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the demands for service tax, interest, and penalties confirmed against the appellant were unsustainable both for the pre- and post-01.07.2012 periods. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.