2024 (1) TMI 1160 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax Demand for Pre-June 2007 Erection Services Overturned Due to Indivisible Works Contract.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal that upheld the Service Tax demand for 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation' services for ... Erection, Commissioning and Installation service - whether the demand raised for the period earlier to 01.06.2007 and sustained in the impugned order is justified? - period from July 2003 to April 2006 - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice, which is the starting point, clearly reveals that the period was from July 2003 to April 2006. At paragraph 3 of the Show Cause Notice, the issuing authority has worked out the total Service Tax after allowing abatement of 67% at Rs.3,98,763/-, which was proposed to be demanded and thereafter, vide Order-in-Original No. 95/2010 dated 31.12.2010, came to be confirmed. It is clear that the Revenue has accepted that the service carried out by the appellant was in terms of the works contract and admittedly, the period is also prior to 01.06.2007 and hence, it is agreed that the issue involved in the above case is no more res integra as the same stands covered in favour of the taxpayer by the above ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. There are no merit in the demand raised and upheld in the impugned order - appeal allowed. Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding Service Tax demand for 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation' service pre-June 2007.Summary:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal and confirming the demand of Service Tax against the taxpayer for 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation' service, along with interest and penalties. The appellant contended that the works contract with the Municipality for a project involved both construction activity and supply of goods, which was indivisible. Citing a Supreme Court decision and a Tribunal order, the appellant argued that the demand cannot stand.The Assistant Commissioner defended the orders of the lower authorities, asserting that the demand was justified. The main issue for determination was whether the demand for the period pre-June 2007 was justified.Upon reviewing the documents, it was found that the service carried out by the appellant under the works contract was accepted by the Revenue, and the period in question was before June 2007. Citing the Supreme Court ruling and a previous Tribunal decision, it was concluded that the demand was not valid. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law.