TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] . While holding that indivisible works contracts were liable to service tax only on and from 1st June, 2007, whereafter Finance Act 2007 expressly made such contracts liable to service tax and it was held that Works contract were not chargeable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007. Respectfully following the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, which are fully applicable to the instant case, it can be concluded that the services rendered by the appellant under the subject contracts are classifiable as works contract and are not liable to service tax under the Act during the period involved - the demand of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein. 2. The appellant during the material period undertook the work of turnkey contracts on lump sum basis of design, engineering, fabrication, supply and erection, installation, commissioning of Central Air Conditioning plants at the customer s premises. According to the appellant the said indivisible contracts which were works contract under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994, was outside the purview of service tax for the period prior thereto involved herein. 3. However on the basis that the said services rendered by the appellant during the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2007 was classifiable as providing of erection, commissioning and installation services under Section 65(39a) read with Section 65(105)(zzd) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore no service tax is payable on such services prior thereto. In support of this the appellant has relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of C.Ex. Cus. Vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd., 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) and the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Delhi Jal Board Contractors Welfare Association Vs. Union of India, 2019 (26) GSTL 180 (Del). Reliance has also been placed upon he decision of the Tribunal s South Zonal Bench in the appellant s own case reported in 2008 (10) STR 188 (T) [Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise]. Hence, according to the appellant, the impugned order, the demands of tax and interest confirmed and the penalty imposed thereby are contrary to law and unsustainable. 5. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning and installation service under Section 65(39a) and taxable under Section 65(105)(zzd) of the Act for the period prior thereto. 8. This issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of C.Ex. Cus. Vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. (supra). While holding that indivisible works contracts were liable to service tax only on and from 1st June, 2007, whereafter Finance Act 2007 expressly made such contracts liable to service tax, it was, inter alia, observed by the Hon ble court as follows: 24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circulars to the contrary of CBEC are to be disregarded in this regard. 10. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Delhi High Court, which are fully applicable to the instant case, we are of the view that the services rendered by the appellant under the subject contracts are classifiable as works contract and are not liable to service tax under the Act during the period involved. This legal position is also agreed to by the Learned Special Counsel on behalf of the Department. 11. In the premises, the demand of tax and interest confirmed by the impugned order and the penalty imposed are unsustainable. 12. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, with conseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
