Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the activities undertaken under the work orders amounted to execution of a works contract liable to service tax under Works Contract Service.
Analysis: The contractual documents showed that the appellant's obligations were confined to design, engineering, manufacture, supply, documentation and supervision of erection and commissioning of equipment. The work orders and letters of intent also indicated supply and delivery of machinery, exclusion of civil work and erection by the appellant, and payment terms linked to dispatch of documents and equipment rather than execution of erection or commissioning. Supervision of erection and commissioning was not treated as the same as actual erection, commissioning or installation. In the absence of the appellant undertaking the core activities contemplated under clause (a) or turnkey/EPC activity under clause (e) of the definition, the statutory ingredients of works contract were not satisfied.
Conclusion: The demand under Works Contract Service was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellant obtained consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere design, manufacture, supply and supervision of erection and commissioning, without undertaking actual erection, commissioning, installation or other qualifying works contract activity, does not attract service tax under Works Contract Service.