TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Allowed: Service Tax Demand Set Aside for Works Contract</h1> <h3>M/s Sai Teja Constructions Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad - II</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for service tax under Erection Commissioning or Installation Services. The appellant's contract ... Classification of services - Erection Commissioning and Installation Services or Works contract service? - contract for supply of labour and material along with installation of fire fighting system - period 07.05.2007 to 16.07.2007 - Held that:- The appellant had herein entered into contract for supply of material fire fighting system and installation thereof, which included Erection Commissioning and Installation of services - The law is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Tourbo Ltd., [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved:1. Demand of service tax under Erection Commissioning or Installation Services.Analysis:The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 06/2011 related to the demand of service tax under Erection Commissioning or Installation Services. The appellant had entered into a contract for the supply of labor and material along with the installation of a fire fighting system. The show cause notice was issued for the demand of service tax liability under the mentioned category. Both lower authorities held the appellant liable for paying the tax under Erection Commissioning and Installation Services.The appellant argued that the entire agreement was for the supply of materials and erection, hence should be considered as a works contract service. Reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE Vs. Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant had only installed the fire fighting system and was correctly covered under Erection Commissioning & Installation Services.Upon careful consideration of submissions and perusal of the show cause notice, it was found that the appellant had entered into a contract for the supply of material for the fire fighting system and its installation, which included Erection Commissioning and Installation services. The Tribunal held that the law as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. case would apply. Since the appellant had entered into an agreement for works contract service with no dispute, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.
TaxTMI 
