TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mation of service tax demand on the appellant under the category of erection, installation and commissioning services to the extent of Rs. 7,62,26,657/-. Revenue is aggrieved of the re-computation of the service tax demand done by the adjudicating authority taking into the account the abatement available in terms of Notification No. 1/06 dated 01/03/2006. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, we take them up together for consideration and disposal. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows:- 2.1 The appellant M/s. Surindra Engineering Co. Ltd. are manufactures of pipes and are also service tax assessees in respect of GTA services. They undertook manufacture and supply of pipes to Maharashtra Jeevan P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 dated 01/03/2006 as per the documentary evidences for the period from March 2006 to March 2007. Interest on the service tax confirmed was demanded under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 @ Rs. 100/- every day during which the assessee failed to pay the service tax was imposed till 17/04/2006 and with effect from 18/04/2006, the penalty was imposed @ Rs. 200/- per day for failure of payment of service tax subject to the overall ceiling of service tax demanded i.e. Rs. 7,62,26,257/-. The Ld. Commissioner further imposed a penalty of Rs. 8.00 crores on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act for not paying the tax by suppressing the fact with intent to evade the same. The appellants are before us aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y involved not only supply of goods but also supply of services. The hon'ble High Court held that the activity undertaken was in the nature of a work contract and hence, not leviable to service tax under the category of Consulting Engineer. The Ld. Counsel argues that, in their case also, the activity undertaken includes not only supply of goods but also supply of services and, therefore, the activity undertaken by them would rightly come under the category of works contract and not under the category of "erection, commissioning and installation service". The Ld. Counsel submits that while confirming the service tax demand, the Ld. Commissioner has taken into account the entire value of the contract, which is for supply of goods as well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rajkot Vs. PSL Ltd. - 2013 (31) STR 570 (Tri-Ahmed) wherein it was held that laying of separate pipelines or laying of coated pipes for water supply projects would not come within the purview of "erection, commissioning or installation service" and merit classification under "construction service". 4. The Ld. JCDR on the other hand submits that the order of the Tribunal in the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., has been appealed against the before the hon'ble High Court of Madras and the same has been admitted and, therefore, no precedential value can be given to the said judgment. As regards the contention of the appellant that the value of the goods supplied have been included while demanding the service tax, the Ld. JCDR submits that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that services covered under works contract service is taxable even prior to 01/06/2007 if the service is provided therein came under the purview of a standalone service as defined under Section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994 and, therefore, if any of the services rendered comes under the category of a taxable service prior to 01/06/2007, service tax is liable to be paid on such service even though the whole service may come under the category of works contract service after 01/06/2007. In the light of these submissions, the Ld. JCDR submits that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 4.1 The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Hume Pipes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment has filed an appeal before the hon'ble High Court of Madras against the said decision, no stay has been obtained by the department in respect of the said decision. Further, the Board's own Circular dated 24/05/2010 makes it absolutely clear that unless the activity undertaken results in the emergence of an "erected, installed and commissioned plant, machinery, equipment or structure", the activity will not come under the category of erection, commissioning and installation service. Pipelines cannot be construed as a plant, machinery or equipment or structure. Further, the said circular also clarifies that laying of cables under or alongside road or railway tracks, etc. is not a taxable service under Section 65(105) of the Fin....