Valuation of goods in erection, commissioning and installation contracts: separately disclosed supplies excluded from service tax and extended limitation denied

Valuation of goods in contracts for erection, commissioning and installation required segregating supply and service components; where contracts, invoices and books separately disclose goods value and VAT/CST was paid on supply, that supply constitutes sale and is excluded from taxable value of service, resulting in no service tax demand on goods. Allegations of suppression, fraud or misstatement were rejected because the appellant had bona fide belief based on contractual allocations and main contractor practices; consequently extended period of limitation was not attracted and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the amount received by the appellant from their main contractors towards providing "erection, commissioning and installation services" would be considered taxable income and whether the service tax involved would be payable by the appellant.
2. Whether the amount received by the appellant from their clients towards the value of goods traded during the provision of "erection, commissioning and installation service" would be considered taxable income by disallowing them the benefits of Notification No. 12/2003-ST and whether service tax involved would be payable by the appellant.
3. Whether the amount received by the appellant from their clients towards the value of goods traded during the provision of "erection, commissioning and installation service" in the subsequent financial year would be considered taxable income by disallowing them the benefits of Notification No. 12/2003-ST and whether service tax involved would be payable by the appellant.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1:
The Tribunal examined whether the amount of Rs. 1,26,22,597/- received by the appellant from their main contractors for providing "erection, commissioning and installation services" to GAIL and GSPL during FY 2007-08 would be taxable. The appellant argued that they had paid VAT on the material supply portion and service tax on the service portion. The Tribunal found that the contracts provided a clear break-up of the value of service and material portions, and the appellant had paid VAT on the material supply portion. The Tribunal held that the value of goods sold should not be included in the taxable value of services, as per Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax on this amount.

Issue 2:
Regarding the amount of Rs. 20,55,26,239/- received by the appellant from their clients for the value of goods traded during the provision of "erection, commissioning and installation service" from FY 2007-08 to 2010-11, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid VAT on the material supply portion. The Tribunal found that the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, which exempts the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider from the service tax, should be extended to the appellant. The Tribunal held that the service tax demand on this amount was not justified and set it aside.

Issue 3:
For the amount of Rs. 15,21,16,142/- received by the appellant from their clients towards the value of goods traded during the provision of "erection, commissioning and installation service" in FY 2011-12, the Tribunal reiterated that the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST should be extended to the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant had paid VAT on the material supply portion and that the value of goods sold should not be included in the taxable value of services. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand on this amount.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the value of goods and materials sold by the appellant should not be included in the taxable value of services, provided that VAT had been paid on the material supply portion. The Tribunal also noted that there was no suppression of facts or mala fide intention on the part of the appellant, and thus the extended period of limitation was not applicable.

---