2013 (1) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is under the head "Construction Services" and rest of the demand is under the head "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services". On a perusal of the records, we find that the entire demand is on a taxable value of Rs. 36,50,64,556/- which represents the 'commercial consideration' received by the appellant from the State Bank of India (service recipient) for the "Site Installation Services" provided to the Bank in relation to supply, installation and commissioning of Automated Teller Machines (ATM) for the Bank in different parts of the country during the said period. This activity was undertaken by the appellant under an Agreement called "Master Solutions Agreement" dated 19.4.2003 which was renewed on the same terms and conditions for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce tax as applicable. It was further stipulated that any increase in service tax would be borne by the Bank and any benefit of decrease would also be passed on to the Bank. It further appears from the records that the department had demanded service tax from the appellant under two other heads viz. 'Commissioning or Installation Services' and 'Business Auxiliary Services' for an earlier period which partly overlap with the present period of dispute. That demand was raised in a show-cause notice dated 17.4.2006 and the same was contested by the appellant. That dispute eventually came up before this Tribunal and the demand came to be set aside vide Final Order No.610/2008 dated 16.5.2008. The present dispute pertains to the 'site installation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is submitted that the appellant should be precluded from pleading that their activity was in the nature of execution of Turnkey contract' and hence liable to be classified as 'works contract'. The Additional Commissioner (AR) in this connection points out that the appellant had admittedly paid service tax on a part of the activities undertaken by them for the benefit of SBI under the above Agreement. The contract was vivisected by the appellant himself and hence, the subject activities can hardly be classified as 'works contract service'. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) has also contested the plea of limitation by submitting that no copy of the 'Master Solutions Agreement' was supplied by the appellant to the department at any sta....