2013 (12) TMI 1063

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ipes on behalf of their customers M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The Revenue later found that they had not obtained the registration in the category of "Erection, Commissioning and Installation". The original adjudicating authority on adjudication confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,36,720/- towards Service Tax and imposed an equal amount of penalty and separate penalties under Sections 77 & 78. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order and allowed the appeal filed by the party. 2. The main contention of the respondents was that they are not covered under the taxable head of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services as defined under the Finance Act, 1994; that the clarification vide C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 62/11/2003-S.T., dated 21-8-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessable value of goods cleared at the factory gate, as the laying of pipes does not involve manufacturing activity. Therefore, the income of laying the pipes and making them ready for use is service, which has been provided by the noticee and is other than manufacturing activity. This activity of laying the pipes making it ready for use is covered under the service tax under the category of "Erection, Commissioning and Installation" as defined under Section 65(39a) of the Act and is taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzd) of the Act. 3.1 Section 65(39a) of the Finance Act, 1994 which inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 10-9-2004 which reads as under :- "39(a) "erection, commissioning or installation" means a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chennai)] 3.     Dinesh Chandra Agarwal Infracon P. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad [2011 (21) S.T.R. 41 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] 4.     Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad [2011-TIOL-218-CESTAT-AHM = 2011 (22) S.T.R. 459 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] 6. It is clearly held by the CESTAT in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) that laying pipe lines for water supply projects run by Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board not leviable to tax and it is for the Revenue to show that the purpose of construction of pipe lines is for commerce or primarily for commerce. Commerce would mean buying and selling not necessarily for profit according to Revenue. But, the question here is the purpose of buying water by GWSSB was for sell....