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 1274 - CESTAT NEW DELHIClassification of services - work orders executed by the appellants - whether the service would fall under the head erection, commissioning or installation service so as to attract service tax or would constitute manufacture so as to attract excise duty? - Held that: - the definition of the service of erection, commissioning or installation has undergone repeated changes during the disputed period. Before finalizing the classification of the activity carried out and crystallizing the demand of service tax, we are of the view that the activities covered in each work/job order needs to be examined with reference to the entry as it stood at the relevant time. The activity of erection was not part of the statute for the period 01/7/2003 to 09/9/2004. The scope of the entry during the period 10/9/2004 to 15/6/2005 was also limited Reliance placed in the case of M/s Neo Structo Construction Ltd. Versus CCE & C Surat I and vice versa [2010 (3) TMI 252 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where the Tribunal has held that wherever fabrication of structures amounts to manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, in such cases no service tax can be demanded under the category of erection of plant, machinery or equipment as no civil work was undertaken - We find that this decision of the Tribunal is relevant to the present case. Demand of service tax is to be excluded wherever such fabrication activity amounts to manufacture, leading to a structure classifiable under Section 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|