TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate For the Appellant Shri B Balamuguan AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The issue involved is whether appellants are liable to pay service tax under Consulting Engineering Services . 1.1 The appellant is registered with the Tirupur Central Excise Division and are engaged in undertaking and executing large turnkey projects. They entered into contracts with New Tirupur Area Development Corporation Ltd (NTADCL) which was incorporated as a public limited company by the Government of Tamil Nadu in respect of engineering contract and construction contract on 29.10.2002. NTADCL executed a single co-ordination agreement on 29.10.2002. The relevant clauses of the co-ordination agreement are reproduced below :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Tirupur Division) stating that they had paid an amount of service tax erroneously on wrong advise and therefore wanted refund of amount. The refund claim in proper form was filed on 19.3.2004 and the same was rejected holding that appellants are liable to pay service tax under Consulting Engineering Services . The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the rejection of refund, who upheld the rejection of refund. Against such order of rejection of refund of ₹ 2,84,16,309, the appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal and vide F.O.No.434/2008 dt.30.4.2008 the Tribunal held that the appellants did not render Consulting Engineering Services to NTADCL and therefore they are eligible for refund. Thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid contracts has been decided by the Tribunal in the appellants own case for the earlier period (April 2003 to December 2003) in the appellants favour. The Tribunal in the said decision had held that the project was a turn key project which involved both design and construction and reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Daelim Industrial Company Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) (3) STR 124 (Tribunal) thus observing that turnkey contract cannot be vivisected to demand service tax solely on Consulting Engineering Services . The appeal filed by the Department against such order having been dismissed by the Hon ble Madras High Court, the issue has attained finality. The Ld.Counsel also argued that the indivisible works ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into four different contracts with M/s.NTADCL for implementing Tirupur Water Supply Project as below:- a. Engineering Contract dt.29.10.2002 b. Construction Contract dt.29.10.2002 c. Coordination Agreement dt.29.10.2002 d. Interface Management and Wrap Agreement dt.29.10.2002 The above four contracts were independent in nature and scope, and each head had different purposes, as explained below : 4.2 The Glause N of Engineering Contract reads as below :- the contractor has agreed to enter into this Engineering Contract with owner specifying the terms and conditions in relation to certain design and engineering of the facility which will be designed by the contractor so that upon construction, commissioning and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has, at the request of the owner and in consideration of the owner having agreed to appoint HCC as the contractor under both the Engineering Contract and the Construction Contract, agreed to enter in to a separate agreement for co-ordination of its obligations under the said Engineering contract and the Construction Contract . 4.4. Thus the above two contracts namely Engineering Contract and Construction Contract were co-ordinated by the Co-ordination Agreement dated 29.10.2002 as the contractor was the same. The Co-ordination Agreement did not change the nature of the work carried out, it is to be seen that the cost of Engineering Contract and the Construction Contract was separately agreed upon. The nature of work to be carried out we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
