2018 (1) TMI 1056

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... engineers; maintenance & repair; erection, commissioning & installation; test, inspection & certification etc. Learned Counsel pointed out that they had installed imported capital goods namely, Galvanizing furnace, Zinc Kettle etc. and paid the amounts against the purchase order to the supplier namely, M/s Prothrem Engineering (Walsall) Ltd. UK. In terms of the purchase order, the supplier in UK had arranged for testing and commissioning of all the items of Galvanizing furnace/Zinc Kettle free of cost within a stipulated period of 18 days. For any delay in the performance of the said activity, the appellants were required to pay @ UK Pound 600 per day. The said activity was completed in 22 days and hence, the appellant paid an amount of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-Ahmd). He pointed out that the decision of Tribunal in the case of Alidhara Texspin Engineers (supra) is a division Bench judgment whereas the decision of Lincon Helios (supra) is a Single Member Bench judgment. 2.3 Learned Counsel argued that M/s Prothrem Engineering has not charged anything for the installation of goods for the period of 18 days and thus, there was no service element. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lincon Helios (supra). 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that similar matter has been earlier decided by the Tribunal in the case of Lincon Helios (supra) and in case of Alidhara Texspin (supra). The learned Counsel for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2003 no service tax was leviable on erection and commission work. It was only subjected to tax from 1-7-2003. The assessee has paid the excise duty on the value of the product notwithstanding the services rendered. It is in that context, they were contending that there cannot be levy of tax under two parliamentary legislations. However, the excise duty was levied on the aspect of manufacture and service tax is levied on the aspect of services rendered. Therefore, it will not amount to payment of tax twice. After contesting the matter before the Tribunal, the assessee has paid the service tax and interest thereon. It is in these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any willful attempt to evade the payment of tax on the part of the....