Tribunal upholds 2009-10 demand, excludes Railway, Ajmere amount. Time-barred demand. Appellants entitled to Composition Scheme.

The tribunal upheld the demand for the year 2009-10, except for a specific amount related to Railway, Ajmere, which was set aside. The rest of the demand was barred by time. The appellants were entitled to the Composition Scheme benefit but were found not to have opted for it. The appeal was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay Service Tax on works contract services.
2. Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24th May, 2010.
3. Classification of services under erection, commissioning, or installation services.
4. Application of Composition Scheme and cum-tax benefit.
5. Limitation period for raising demand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Service Tax on Works Contract Services:
The appellants were engaged in providing erection, commissioning, and installation services but did not pay the appropriate Service Tax. An investigation led to a demand of Rs. 12,56,44,634/- for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10, which was later reduced to Rs. 1,34,66,803/- by the adjudicating authority. The appellants contested this demand, arguing that they were not liable to pay Service Tax based on CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for specific categories of work orders, which included providing and fixing street lights, electrification, and installation of transformers.

2. Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24th May, 2010:
The appellants argued that their activities were exempt from Service Tax as per the CBEC Circular. The circular clarified that activities such as shifting overhead cables, laying cables under or alongside roads, and laying electric cables between grids/sub-stations were not taxable. However, the adjudicating authority found that certain activities, like providing and fixing street lights and electrification, were taxable under the circular. The tribunal upheld the demand for these taxable activities but set aside the demand for non-taxable activities like shifting overhead cables.

3. Classification of Services under Erection, Commissioning, or Installation Services:
The adjudicating authority classified the appellant's services under erection, commissioning, or installation services. The tribunal observed that the contracts involved both services and the supply of goods, making them indivisible and falling under works contract services. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., which clarified that works contracts encompass a wide range of contracts involving both goods and services.

4. Application of Composition Scheme and Cum-Tax Benefit:
The appellants claimed the benefit of the Composition Scheme and cum-tax benefit. The tribunal noted that the contracts were composite work contracts and could not be taxed before 1st June, 2007. For the period after 1st June, 2007, the appellants were entitled to opt for the Composition Scheme, which allowed paying Service Tax at a reduced rate. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority erred in denying this benefit due to procedural lapses. However, since the appellants had paid the regular duty at a higher rate, no consequential benefit followed.

5. Limitation Period for Raising Demand:
The demand was raised for the period 2005-2010, but the show cause notice was issued on 22.10.2010. The normal period for raising the demand is one year, extendable in cases of wilful suppression or fraud. The tribunal found that the appellants had a bona fide impression of no tax liability based on the CBEC Circular and did not intentionally evade tax. Therefore, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The confirmed demand was confined to the year 2009-10, and the major drop in demand was upheld.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the demand for the year 2009-10, except for Rs. 2,66,303/- related to Railway, Ajmere, which was set aside. The rest of the demand was set aside as it was barred by time. The appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Composition Scheme but were found not to have opted for it. The appeal was partly allowed.

---