Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 338 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - erection of girders used in the construction of roads and bridges with the help of labour and equipment - supply of tangible goods services or not - Board’s Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.9.2004 and Circular No. B-I/6/2005-TRU dated 27.7.2005 - HELD THAT:- The work order issued by M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited gives the discussion of work as “erection” of 408 Nos. of PSC girder of 39 M. length at 153 KM interchange of Yamuna Expressway Project, Agra (UP) by providing cranes, manpower, tools and tackles including transportation of the same from casting yard of PCEPL to erection location at site. The work order issued by M/s L & T Company describes the work as erection services and the payment in both the cases was linked to the number of girders erected. On going through the work contracts, the work performed by the appellants is essentially erection of girders. For this purpose, they may have used/mobilized equipment/labour. It is not coming forth from the work orders that the work orders were for supplies of any cranes or equipments. The tenor of the contract is certainly for erection of girders. The payment terms also, are not for the lease out or supply of equipment so as to be categorized the service in the supply of tangible goods. The words “by providing” appearing in the contract should be harmoniously read with the other terms of the contract. Even on a plain reading of the description of item, it is clear that the contract is for erection of girders only and it is also mentioned that the requisite equipment, labour, transportation etc. will be managed by the appellant themselves. Education Guide of Service Tax Department clarifies that however, a sub-contractor providing services by way of works contract to the main contractor, providing works contract services, has been exempted from service tax under the mega exemption if the main contractor is engaged in providing exempt services of work contracts. It is not the case of the Revenue that the clients of appellants have not rendered services in the construction of roads and bridges. On this count also, the Revenue’s contention that the appellants provided supply of tangible goods services is not tenable. The impugned order does not survive on merits and is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|