Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 485 - AT - Service TaxTurnkey contract - Erection Commissioning or Installation Services or under Commercial and Industrial Construction Services - Contract for providing and laying spiral welded/fabricated M.S. Pipe line for raising main and its allied works for Nerla lift irrigation scheme - including all related civil, mechanical and electrical works as per design and drawing, commissioning, testing of the entire pipe line and pumping machinery including maintenance for two years after completion of the scheme. - Held that: - It can be noticed from the description of the work awarded to the appellant, it is a contract turnkey project which results in an erected structure with installation of pumping machinery, electrical switch yard and other related civil, mechanical and electrical structures, in our considered view would get covered under head Commercial and Industrial Construction Services. This specific issue was before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lanco Infratech Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 37 - CESTAT BANGALORE (LB)], wherein the Larger Bench has settled that the law and held that irrigation projects/lift irrigation projects would get covered under CICS prior to January, 2007 but eligible for exemption. We also find strong force in the contention of the appellant that the issue is now covered under Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT], in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the same issue of vivisected contract for taxability under different categories. Whether the issue that the contract entered would get covered under Erection Commissioning or Installation Services was never before the lower authorities and hence the appellant should not be allowed to raise the same before the Tribunal is also dismissed as the Bench has recorded the finding on casual perusal of contract entered into is works contract wherein the appellant has used material in all the projects. Since the issue is question of law, in our opinion it can be raised before the Tribunal. The impugned order is set aside on merits itself. Since we are allowing the appeal on merits, we are not recording any observation on the various submissions made by both sides - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
|