Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 978 - CESTAT CHENNAINature of services - Benefit of abatement under N/N. 1/2006-ST dt. 1.3.2006 - Erection, Installation or Commissioning services - Department was of the view that to avail the benefit of notification, the plant, machinery, equipment and other material should be supplied by the service provider and not for simple supply of any other material for providing service - input tax credit - Held that:- Perusal of the purchase order and invoices indicates that the appellant’s activities are not restricted only as a service provider simplicitor, for example a purchase order / invoice clearly indicate “supply and installation of power cables multi strand, Armoured copper UG, Tower implementation, shelter erection on site, supply and installation of earthing pits, supply and installation of aviation lamp for towers and so on. The SCN has also alluded to the appellant’s letter dt. 21.09.2007 wherein the appellants have reported to have informed that “major equipment” would be supplied by the customer Nortel. While this may very well be so, there is no allegation by the department that entire equipment and material has been supplied in totality by Nortel. Whether for being considered as a composite works contract, the service provider is required to provide not only of the services required for execution of the contract but also all materials and equipments required for such execution? - Held that:- When there is supply of material involved by the service provider in execution of the product project / work contracted to him, the activity done on such service provider cannot be mere “service simplicitor” but will be a composite contract comprising of both materials and services. It really does not matter what percentage of the materials is being provided by such service provider at his cost. However, necessary facts as to whether the appellants had actually supplied material also for the works executed by them is not forthcoming. More so because, the purchase order says “for services only”. It is seen that appellants have rendered ECIS in nature of laying foundation for tower, installation of machinery equipments etc. Though tower, machinery, equipments are provided by Nortel, the contractor would have to use other materials for rendering ECIS. The facts in such line have to be verified - matter remanded to adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|