TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in manufacturing of tower parts, providing erection, installation and commissioning of said telecom towers and equipments, consulting engineers, maintenance and repair services and construction services; are registered with the Service Tax authorities and discharging the appropriate Service Tax and filing returns with the authorities. During the course of an investigation by DGCEI, the authorities were of the view that the appellant had short paid the service tax liability for the period 01.07.2003 to 30.09.2007 on various services which they were providing. Show Cause Notices dated 06.12.2007, 14.03.2008 (invoking extended period of limitation) were issued to appellant directing to show cause as to why the demand of differential tax be not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not taxable and the same cannot be vivisected and charged to tax under various services is the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Kerala Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd [2015-39- STR-913-SC] which has been followed by this Bench in the case of Navayuga Engineering Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Visakhapatnam [2017-51-STR- 285]. It is his submission that as regards the demands raised prior to 01.06.2007 on this point, it will not sustain the scrutiny of law as per the law settled by the Apex Court; as regards the service tax liability post 01.06.2007, he submits that the lower authorities need verification for demand on this point whether they would fall under works contract or any other services, hence, seeks remand on this point. 3.1. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruction activity is under works contract for which they have discharged VAT/sales tax to the State Governments. 3.3. It is his further submission that question of interest and penalty would not arise and for the amounts for which they request remand, the question of penalty would not arise there also. 4. Learned departmental representative submits that appellant had rendered taxable services of erection, commissioning and installation services for the period as indicated by the learned counsel, and discharged service tax by availing abatement under Notification Nos.12/2003 and 19/2003 on the gross amount received for the said services in certain cases did not discharge the service tax on the ground that main contractor has discharg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility on the services of erection as a sub-contractor, they have not discharged the same on the understanding that main contractor is responsible for the same and in the absence of any proof that main contractor has discharged the tax liability appellant, being sub-contractor, is liable to discharge the service tax liability. It is his further submission that work undertaken by the appellant for erection and commissioning of railway signalling services, it would not fall under category of works contract since, there is no construction activity involved in the said works but only erection and commissioning of signalling systems. As regards the demand of tax in the construction of industrial or commercial building services, which include the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing is done on erection per tower basis rate; entered into agreements with various telecom service providers and considered the amounts as composite contracts involving supply of material and services and as per their understanding, paid tax after availing abatement of 67% as provided. 8. In respect of the telecom tower installation services, construction of petrol pumps and industrial buildings, erection and painting of telecom towers and erection of signalling system for railways, we find that these works have been awarded to the appellant on turnkey basis for laying the foundation as per the design, erect tower materials on the foundation, civil works for base station and consumption of materials like cement, steel for laying the foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....do so. 10. As regards to the demands raised on appellant post 01.06.2007 under the category of "tower implementation services" and "erection and installation services as a sub-contractor", we find that the demands raised under these two heads needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority as the random perusal of the documents and impugned order indicate that the claim of the appellant has not been considered in proper perspective by the adjudicating authority. To the extent demands are raised on these two services post 01.06.2007, without expressing any opinion and leaving all the issues open, the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following principles of natural justice. ....