TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs.53,44,889/- under proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith interest under Section 75 of the Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 of the Act and an equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act. The learned Commissioner confirmed the said demands under 'Erection, Commissioning & Installation Service' provided under Section 65(105)(zzd) of the Finance Act, 1994 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is an electrical contractor and is engaged in rendering electrical services to various government departments viz. HUDA, Haryana Tourism, PWD in relation to hospitals, roads, colleges etc. The appellant is also engaged in installing electric sub-stations, transformers etc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioning & Installation Service' is not sustainable in law on the ground of wrong classification. He further submits that this issue is no more res integra and the Tribunal in catena of the decisions has settled this issue in favour of the assessee. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following decisions: • Bajrang Lal Gupta vs. CCE, Delhi-III - 2023 (6) TMI 246 CESTAT CHANDIGARH • National Building Construction Corporation Ltd vs. CCE, Shillong - 2022 (66) GSTL 476 (Tri. Kolkata) • M/s Rajendra Mittal Construction Company Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Alwar - 2022 (3) TMI 1259 CESTAT NEW DELHI • M/s Shree Mohangarh Construction Co. vs. CCE, Jaipurn & vice-versa - 2018 (4) TMI 619 CES....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial on record as well as the decisions relied upon by the appellant as cited above. We find that in the present case, it is admitted fact that the contracts awarded to the appellant are composite in nature because the department has itself extended the benefit of abatement @67% in terms of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. We also find that this issue is no more res integra and the Tribunal in various decisions has consistently held that once the alleged service falls under the category of 'Works Contract Service', the same cannot be taxed under 'Erection, Commissioning & Installation Service'. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bajrang Lal Gupta (supra), wherein the identical issue was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal authority held that the tax could not have been leviable under the said Act u/s 73(1)(a). However, the original authority proceeded to impose the tax under the head 'Business Auxiliary Service' which is taxable u/s 73(1)(d) and 73(1)(e). The fact that there was no proposal in the show cause notice to include the income as auxiliary business service is indisputable in view of the contents of the show cause notice and therefore in the absence of any notice issued to the respondent in view of the provisions of Section 73, it is clear that imposition of tax and consequently interest and penalty cannot be sustained and the same has been rightly set aside by the Tribunal. As no order to treat the income as Business Auxiliary Service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service tax liabilities under 'Works Contract Service' as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid. d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex' Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain." 20. Similarly....