Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 378 - AT - Service TaxWorks contract service - evasion of payment of Service Tax - It is also alleged that appellant has wrongly classified the remaining service under ECIS and CICS with the sole intention to wrongly avail the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - Held that:- Prior the appellant started Civil Construction, Errection or Installation at the agreed site, the equipments to be erected/installed at that site were agreed to be supplied to the appellant vide a separate agreement. This particular fact makes it abundantly clear that property in goods which were to be erected and installed by the appellant had not transferred in his favour at the site of construction and erection. Above all it is admitted and acknowledged fact that execution of three separate agreements was the mandate of the bid of company itself. We, therefore, are of the firm opinion that value of this contract cannot be treated as the part of the gross-value for the entire work done by the appellant. Commissioning and Industrial Construction Services - Held that:- It is very much apparent that the technical specification, material for the projects were to be provided by the service recipient to the appellant. Relying upon the M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (Supra) as above there is no doubt that the said contract is of work contract service altogether different from remaining two contracts. Department has alleged that the appellant has wrongly availed the benefit of notification 1/2006 but on perusal of show cause notice show that the impugned order‟s period is 01/10/2009. Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services - Held that:- For executing this contract the goods required for the purpose were supplied to the appellant vide a separate agreement. No question for this service to become work contract arises nor for adding the value of three of the contracts as to gross-value liability under works contract service as alleged. It is apparent and admitted fact that the appellant is otherwise discharging liability for three of these contracts separately. In the present case though we observe that same judicial indiscipline is committed by the Original Adjudicating Authority herein, however, keeping in view that the same is not the ground of appeal and also that the Commissioner has a bona-fide opinion of the present case being different from the previous one, we do not opt to impose any fine. However the Adjudicating Authority below are warned to strictly maintain the judicial decision. Appeal allowed.
|