Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r commerce and industry. It is the unequivocal case of the petitioner that all these works were executed for the State Government, for irrigation projects and for supply of drinking water and not for commerce or industry and therefore there is no liability to service tax. The adjudication order did not advert to this contention of the petitioner, since the order proceeded on the premise that services provided prior to 01/06/2007 require to be classified as ECIS and since Section 65(39a) does not restrict the definition of the taxable service defined therein to services provided in relation to commerce or industry only, service tax is leviable. On the basis of the analysis in the adjudication order, it is not very clear whether all works .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent : Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner (AR) PER : G RAGHURAM ST/COD/55/2012 Though no wholly satisfactory cause is shown for condonation of the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal, we condone the delay in the following circumstances. The petitioner/appellant has preferred the appeal against the adjudication order imposing penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The cause for the delay is stated to be that the petitioner assumed that the other assessee namely the company of which the petitioner herein is Managing Director would prefer an appeal and he is not required to prefer a separate appeal. In the circumstances, we condone the delay but on condition that the petitioner remits costs of Rs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of pumping stations; treatment plants and canals; and electro-mechanical works involving erection, commissioning and installation of various pumps, motors and equipments for treatment required to set up water treatment or water supply plants and the like. The adjudicating authority summarized the nature of the works involved in several agreements between the petitioner and the State Government separately, for the period 16/06/2005 to 31/05/2007; and for 01/06/2007 to 31/03/2010, in paragraphs 16.1 and 17.2 of the adjudication order, set out in a tabular format. The substantive appeal ST/501/2012 presents, a classification dispute. 3. For the period prior to 01/06/2007 while the petitioner contends that the services provided ought to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e clearly falling under CICS. In para 4 of this judgment, the Tribunal concluded that pipeline could not be considered as part of a plant, equipment or machinery and the appellants could not be held to be undertaking ECIS. Considering the issue whether installation of sumps, pump sets etc. as part of the contracted work would bring it within the scope of ECIS, the Tribunal concluded that as these works are only for regulation and monitoring flow of water in the pipeline, these components of works were components of the generic activity of construction of pipeline. 6. Prima facie , on analysis of the several contracts summarized in para 16.1 of the adjudication order, considered in the context of the definition of ECIS and CICS (as these p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e scope of Section 65(105)(zzzza)(b), in particular the contracts summarized at Sl. Nos. 1, 5 6 of the table in para 17.2 of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner however asserts that all these works are in relation to laying of pipelines or in relation to irrigation projects of the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner also refers the observations in para 18.5 of the adjudication order wherein the learned Commissioner rejects the contentions of the petitioner based on Board's Circular No.116/10/2009 dt. 15/09/2009 (wherein at para 3 it was clarified that construction activity in relation to dams for Governments even through on EPC/turn key basis, are excluded from the scope of Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act in view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates