Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 923 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Works Contract Services - Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services - case of revenue is that the electrical installation works undertaken by the appellant during the disputed period is to be classified under the Works Contract Services and under the Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services - time limitation - HELD THAT:- From the definition of Works contract, it is found that only erection, commissioning or installation of electrical and electronic devices are covered under the above entry whereas appellant are engaged in works of electrical light fittings, laying of cables, earthing works, fitting of poles, electric wiring, etc. In the present matter revenue nowhere provided any invoices or any documents by which it can be concluded that the appellant are engaged in erection, commissioning or installation of electrical and electronic devices. Therefore the Service tax demand in the present matter is not sustainable under works contract service on appellant's activity. The Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CE & CUSTOMS, NASHIK VERSUS S.Z. DHANWATE ENGG. WORKS [2016 (1) TMI 676 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that The words used in the Notification are “for the services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity” and undisputed facts are that NTPS Nashik are engaged in ‘‘power generation and supply of electricity”. The supply of electricity cannot take place except by way of transmission and distribution. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case that firstly the issue involved is of pure interpretation of legal provisions and classification of services therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant had any mala fide intentions and have suppressed any fact with intention to evade payment of service tax. It is also on record that the Appellant have represented the matter before department during the investigation of case. This clearly shows that there is no suppression or willful misstatement on the part of the Appellant. The Appellant in the present matter has also provided all the details/documents/records related to the disputed activity before department. In this circumstances charge of suppression or willful misstatement do not survive against the Appellant. Thus extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present matter - The show cause notice was issued on 19.10.2012 for the period covered 2007-08 to 2011-12, which is clearly beyond the normal period of limitation. Therefore, demand is time barred and, therefore, cannot sustain. Penalties - HELD THAT:- The penalties imposed upon the appellant also cannot be upheld. The impugned order is required to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
|