Appeal Allowed: Tribunal Rules Services Fall Under 'Works Contract Service,' Exempting Appellant from Additional Tax Demand.

The appellant's appeal against the service tax demand under "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service" was allowed. The Tribunal found that the appellant's activities fell under "Works Contract Service," which did not attract the demand. Citing a SC decision, it was clarified that the services in question pertained to service contracts, not composite works contracts. The appellant had already paid service tax exceeding the required amount, thus no further demand was sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against demand of service tax under "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service" category.

Summary:
The appellant, engaged in fabrication, erection, commissioning, and installation activities, faced a demand for service tax under the "Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service" category. Initially, the demand was dropped, but the Revenue challenged this decision. The appellant contended that they had paid service tax on the service portion and claimed exemption from excise duty. The Revenue argued for upholding the demand.

Upon review, it was established that the appellant's activities fell under "Works Contract Service" which did not attract any demand. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was clarified that the taxable services mentioned in the law referred to service contracts only, not composite works contracts. It was emphasized that no demand was sustainable against the appellant as they had already paid service tax exceeding the required amount.

Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

---