Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Versus CCE, Trichy

2016 (1) TMI 393 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Scope of Works Contract Service - extended period of limitation - bonafide belief - demand of service tax on works contract service of construction of pipeline and other structures for providing water supply for Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, in the Ananthapuram Town Panchayat of Villupuram - there was sufficient scope for the appellants to come into a bonafide belief that even during the said period, in absence of clear definition of the Works Contract Service to cover the specific .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red under the erection, commissioning and installation service earlier, could be covered under the new service.

Since, in the instant case the issue appears to be latent to the interpretation of law at the initial stage of introducing due service, there was scope of bonafide belief that the appellants did not have to pay tax. Therefore, viewing from this angle, the non obtaining of service tax registration and non payment of tax could be due to the bonafide belief that no tax was pay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the appellant's rescue so far as invoking of the extended period of time limit is concerned. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/623/2011 - FINAL ORDER No. 41792 / 2015 - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Adv., For the Respondent : Shri B.Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: P.K. Choudhary The appellant filed this appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in so far as the demand and Section 77 and 78 penalty is concerned and waived the penalty under Section 76 of the Act. On appeal before this Tribunal, vide Tribunal s Final Order No. 40386/2013 dated 22.07.2013 dismissed the condonation of delay application and consequently the appeal along with stay application is also dismissed. The appellant preferred CMA before the Honble High Court of Madras and the Hon ble High Court in their Order dated 24.04.2015 in CMA No. N. 181/2015 & M.P.No. 1/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o demand of service tax on works contract service of construction of pipeline and other structures for providing water supply for Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, in the Ananthapuram Town Panchayat of Villupuram. The services were provided during the period 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2009. As per the Order-in-Original and OIA, the services would fall under the works contract service and as such is liable to service tax. He further submitted that the services were excluded from the scope of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant that the provision of water supply by Municipal Corporation or Panchayat, could not be considered for the purpose of commerce or industry. He further submitted that they have already paid the demand and penalties arising out of the Order in Appeal dated 18.10.10, and submitted copies of TR-6 challans in proof of payment. He further submits that they made the payment under protest. He also submits that their case is covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Commissioning or Installation Service . The Appellant appealed against the demand and the Hon ble CESTAT held that the services are not liable to tax under Commissioning or Installation Service vide decision in Indian Hume Pipes Co. Ltd., Vs., Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin, 2008-TIOL-1665-CESTAT-MAD. Copy of the order is at Annexure E (Page 36) of the Appeal book. The order also holds that a water supply project being an infrastructure facility and not primarily for commerce or i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

levy of service tax after introduction of works contract service, the Larger Bench of the Hon ble CESTAT in the case of Lanco Infratech Ltd., and others Vs., Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad (2015-TIOL-768-Cestat-Bang-LB), held that the service relating to construction/laying of pipelines for transmission of water for municipal supply would not amount to erection, commissioning and installation service. The finding of the Cestat in the earlier case was reiterated and applied to Works C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ine is meant for water supply Corporation or Municipality, not being primarily for commerce or industry, no service tax would be leviable. Based on the decision of the Larger bench which is binding, the Ld. Counsel pleaded that the appeal may be allowed. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the grounds of appeal we find that the period involved in the subject appeal is from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2009. The issue involved is whether for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rded his findings in para 4.1 of the impugned Order in Appeal wherein he has observed that the service of laying the pipelines would come under the scope of Works Contract Service from 01.06.2007. 7. On perusal of the definition of erection, commissioning and installation service prior to 01.06.2007 and the definition of Works Contract Service, it is possible to hold that there may be distinction between the definitions of the two services but yet it cannot be ruled out that the interpretation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y involved, yet it would be reasonable for the appellants to contend that there is no erection, commissioning or installation of any of the items specified in the Works Contract Service. 8. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the view that there was sufficient scope for the appellants to come into a bonafide belief that even during the said period, in absence of clear definition of the Works Contract Service to cover the specific service provided by them, no service tax was paya .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version