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 in connection with the DMRC project were classifiable as works contract service and, if so, whether service tax demand could be sustained under erection, commissioning or installation service.
Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and the settled position that a composite contract involving supply of materials along with execution of work is to be treated as a works contract. The contract was executed as a running-account, material-inclusive arrangement and was treated by the parties as a works contract. On that footing, the service could not be taxed under the category invoked in the show-cause notice. Since the demand was confirmed only under erection, commissioning or installation service and not under works contract service, the levy could not survive.
Conclusion: The activity was held to be works contract service, and the service tax demand under erection, commissioning or installation service was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A composite contract involving supply of materials and execution of work cannot be assessed under a non-composite service category when the notice does not invoke the appropriate works contract classification.