2019 (3) TMI 1504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants have not discharged their service tax liability on the services provided by them, investigation was initiated. On scrutiny of documents, it was noticed that they had provided services under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services falling under section 65(105)(zzd) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 65(30a) of the Act. 2. Such services when provided with supply of materials is liable to be classified under the category of Works Contract Service with effect from 01.06.2007 as provided under section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act ibid. Thus, the services provided by the appellant are liable to levy of service tax under ECIS with effect from 16.06.2005. They did not discharge their service tax liability. Show-cause notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31st May, 2007. The appellants are engaged mainly in providing services of Electrical Installation Work/ Works contract for installation of electrical devices or equipments to customers like Southern Railway, Trichy and Madurai, M/s. BHEL, Trichy and various other companies. All these works are composite in nature involving both supply of material and services. Only in the case of customer, namely, M/s. Dalmia Cements, the appellants were rendering pure labour contract without any supply of materials. Even this work executed by appellants would fall under the category of Repair and Maintenance Services [RMS] and, therefore, the demand is not sustainable under ECIS. In any case, the liability in this regard would be only to the extent of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been granted. He relied upon the Explanation in section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and argued that whether the gross amount charged by the service provider is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of taxable services shall be such amount as with the addition of tax payable is equal to the gross amount charged. He, therefore, prayed that the appellants may be given cum-tax benefit and relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Panther Detective Services Vs CCE reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. 116 (Tri. - Del.). 8. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC(AR) supported the findings in the impugned order. She argued that the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demands for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o under Works Contract Services in respect of certain services executed by the appellants. The adjudicating authority has made para-wise discussions with regard to each customer from para 33 to 46 of the impugned order. In para 35, the adjudicating authority has discussed the services provided by appellants to M/s. BHEL. It is seen that in the show-cause notice the work executed with regard to M/s. BHEL involves both supply of materials as well as provisions of services. The period involved is from 2007-08 to 2009-10 and the demand is raised under the category of WCS. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is not contesting the demand raised under the category of WCS but is confining the contest in this issue on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to 01.06.2007 is set aside. 13. For the period after 01.06.2007, for all the amounts which have been confirmed under ECIS, wherein, the contracts are of composite nature involving both supply of materials and provision of services the demand cannot sustain as per the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters. Pvt Ltd., (supra). As such, the demands after 1/6/2007 under the category of ECIS for composite contracts are set aside. 14. The appellants have submitted that they are not contesting the demand confirmed under WCS after the period 01.06.2007. Needless to say that the demand prior to 01.06.2007 under WCS, if any, cannot sustain as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in M/s. Larsen & Toub....