TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, building electrification, construction & maintenance of transformers etc. The said services are categorised as taxable service as per the definition provided under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants are also registered with the Service Tax Department for providing such services under taxable category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation service' and 'works contract service'. During the disputed period, M/s CIDCO had issued the work order to the appellant for providing the activities of erection, testing and commissioning of 33/11 KV transformers with 11/0.4 KV substation with HT-LT cable network and construction of sub-station building. On provision of such services, the appellant had discharged the service tax liabilities und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss. On the basis of such observation, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellant should not be eligible for the benefit provided under Notification No. 45/2010-ST (supra) inasmuch as the services are not connected to transmission and distribution of electricity. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 30.11.2015, the appellant have preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant submitted that an agreement dated 01.08.2003 was entered into between Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and M/s CIDCO for providing power supply to the consumers in Sector 1 to 24 at Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. The said agreement also envisaged for installation and commissionin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 20.07.2010 in view of the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Dixit Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2016 (46) STR 607 (Tri. Mumbai). 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. On careful examination of the agreement dated 01.08.2003 entered into between M/s MSEB and M/s CIDCO read with the work order dated 01.04.2009 issued to the appellant by M/s CIDCO, we find that the assigned work executed by the appellant were in context with installation and commissioning of the sub-station for and on behalf of the MSEB. The Central Government under Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 has exempted payment of service tax on taxable services relating to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f service tax in terms of notification dated 20.07.2010. Thus, we are of the view that the decision relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative cannot hold good for deciding the issue differently. 6. In view of the forgoing discussions, we do not find any merits in the impugned order, insofar as it has confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 39,10,853/- on the appellant. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants to such extent is allowed, with the direction to grant consequential refund, upon fulfilment of the conditions that the incidence of service tax has not been passed on to any other person and same has been borne by the appellant themselves. 7. With regard to denial of the refund benefit for Rs. 17,02,362/-, we are of ....