2011 (2) TMI 1093 - AT - Service Tax

Erection commissioning or installation services - services rendered towards erection installation testing and commissioning to DMRC - Held that - In the case of very same appellant had come up before the Tribunal Bangalore and the Tribunal Bangalore 2010 (12) TMI 147 - CESTAT BANGALORE and ABB Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 335 - CESTAT BANGALORE held that the contracts entered into by the appellant DMRC is in the nature of works contract and therefore during the period for which demand has been made no Service Tax is leviable. order has been passed by the Tribunal in respect of very same appellant and in respect of same contracts the issue is covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
Whether services rendered to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. should be considered as "erection, commissioning or installation services" for Service Tax purposes and if penalty should be imposed.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, addressed the issue of whether services provided to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. fell under the category of "erection, commissioning, or installation services" for Service Tax assessment. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, questioning the taxability of the services rendered to DMRC and demanding a substantial amount as Service Tax along with interest and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. After due process, the impugned order confirmed the duty proposed in the show cause notice, imposed penalties equal to the duty amount, and levied additional penalties under section 76. The appellant, through their advocate, highlighted a precedent set by the Tribunal in a similar case involving the same appellant and DMRC, where it was held that the contracts in question were akin to "works contracts," thereby exempting them from Service Tax liability. The Tribunal noted the consistency in parties and terms between the previous case and the current one, leading them to conclude that the issue was covered by the precedent decision. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to follow the earlier ruling and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, granting any consequential relief deemed necessary.