Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 992 - AT - Service TaxValuation - services of erection of transmission lines - single contract or multiple contracts - inclusion of the value of towers/parts supplied by the appellant under the first contract, in the value of the second contract for determining the service tax liability - it is alleged that the appellant had artificially split the two contracts to evade the payment of service tax - benefit of notifications dated 20.07.2010 and 27.02.2010 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- A division bench of the Tribunal in KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX MUMBAI – VII [2019 (9) TMI 1531 - CESTAT MUMBAI] dealt with contracts with ‘electricity distribution authorities’ for supply, and/or installation of ‘transmission towers’ between 01.10.2004 and 31.03.2009. In paragraph 7, the division bench rejected the contention of the department that the benefit of this notification would not be available to the appellant - The division bench, thereafter, examined the notification dated 20.07.2010 particularly the expression, ‘in relation to’ and after placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in M/S KEDAR CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLHAPUR [2014 (11) TMI 336 - CESTAT MUMBAI] conclude that since the expression ‘relating to’ is very wide in its amplitude and scope, all taxable services rendered in relation to transmission/distribution of electricity would be eligible of the benefit of exemption under notification dated 20.07.2010 for the period upto 27.02.2010. The decision of the Tribunal in Kedar Construction also considered the notification dated 27.02.2010 for the period 27.02.2010 onwards and held that since the exemption is available if the taxable services are rendered for transmission of electricity, the expression ‘for’ would cover a very wide gamut of activities and, therefore, the activities undertaken by the appellant would be eligible to the benefit of a notification. The appellant is, therefore, clearly entitled to the benefit of both the notifications dated 20.07.2010 and 27.02.2010 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|