TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal No.19/Commr/ST/Kol/2008-2009 dated 24.09.2008, the assessee has filed Appeal No.ST/212/2008. Revenue has also challenged the same impugned order by filing Appeal No.ST/4/2009. Likewise the Order-in-Original No.14/Commr/ST/Kol/2009-2010 dated 31.08.2009 has been challenged by the Revenue by filing Appeal No.ST/275/2009. The assessee has also challenged this order by filing Appeal No.ST/279/2009. The issue involved in both the Orders-in-Original is the same and hence all the appeals are proposed to be decided by issue of this common order for the sake of convenience. M/s. K.L.Mechanical Works Pvt. Ltd. (KLM) and M/s. Rawalwasia Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (RMC) are both engaged in similar activities. They are in the business of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with delay, in addition to the service tax demanded as above. b) In respect of M/s. KLM, the following order was passed: i) Demand of service tax was entirely dropped. 2. The impugned order in respect of M/s. RMC has been challenged by both sides. The appeal filed by Revenue is limited to the issue that the adjudicating authority has omitted to demand interest under Section 75 for the service tax which has been ordered to be paid. It has been made clear in the appeal that the interest of about Rs. 12.00 lakhs already demanded in the impugned order pertains to delayed payment of service tax in addition to the service tax demanded above. 3. In the appeal filed by M/s. RMC, the entire demand for service tax have been challe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng or Installation' service. The demand for service tax stands confirmed in the case of M/s. RMC. But in respect of M/s. KLM the same has been dropped by taking the view that the scope of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation' service will not cover the activity in as much as the towers after erection get embedded in the earth and hence become immovable property. But we are led to a different conclusion in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & Customs, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015(39) S.T.R. 913(S.C.)]. The Apex court has held that in the case of composite contracts which involved both supply of goods as well as provision of service, this would be classifiable only under 'Works ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion towers. For this limited purpose we consider it necessary to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. 8. Further, in respect of M/s RMC in addition to the demand confirmed under this category amounts to Rs. 88.00 lakhs, the adjudicating authority has also confirmed the demand of about Rs. 10.00 lakhs under the category of GTA Service. This demand is not contested by M/s RMC and hence we uphold the same. For delayed payment of service tax under the category of GTA Service, M/s RMC will also be liable to pay the interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, as contended by the Revenue in their appeal. Such interest is payable in addition to Rs. 12.00 lakhs. This amount has already been paid and appropriated by adjudicating au....