https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449930 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. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:22:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449930 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449930