2015 (9) TMI 479

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....J. For the Appellant : Mr T Chandrasekaran For the Respondent : Mr K S Venkatagiri JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by V. Ramasubramanian,J) This appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by the Revenue, has been admitted on the following question of law:- "Whether, on the grounds raised above, the service rendered by M/s. Indian Hume Pipe Co.,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng and installation" during the period from 10.9.2004 to 30.9.2006. As a consequence, the Commissioner demanded the service tax under Section 75 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, forcing the department to come up with an appeal. 6. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d be liable to pay service tax or not. 9. It is seen that with effect from 16.6.2005, the definition of the expression "commissioning or installation of construction service"  under Section 65 (25b) was amended to include the construction of a pipeline or conduit. Therefore after 16.6.2005 there was no dispute. Consequently, the department cannot now raise a question as to the very nature ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing stations together with associated machinery and other construction works, including for transmission of water in lift irrigation projects, cannot be classified under ECIS. These services are only classifiable as CICS. Where the pipeline/ conduit laying is executed for Government or Government undertakings as part of irrigation, water supply, or sewerage projects, the works are not exigible to ....