TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act also cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA , PRESIDENT And HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Shri Anil Mishra, Advocate Present For the Respondent : Ms. Jaya Kumari, Authorised Representative ORDER P V SUBBA RAO : The Order in Original dated 28.3.2017 Impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jabalpur is assailed in this appeal by M/s. Kailash Devebuild India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant . This order decided the proposals made in three Show Cause Notices SCN dated 20.10.2009 (covering the period 2004-05 to 2008-09), 4.5.2011 (covering the period 2009-10) and 18.10.2011 (covering the period 2010-11) and confirmed demands of service tax totaling Rs.2,40,48,132/- and imposed penalties under sections 76 and 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 Finance Act . 2. We have heard Shri Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Jaya Kumari, learned authorised representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant provided the service of erection of tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the second was for setting up of transmission line which included erection and installation of towers, for which, goods such as conductors, insulators were provided by EDAs. The appellant discharged excise duty and VAT on the sale price of the parts of towers sold to EDAs under the first contract. For the second contract, the appellant was using materials such as concrete, reinforcement steel, nuts, bolts etc. and was discharging its service tax liability under works contract services. 3. The department issued a show cause notice dated 03.05.2012 for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2011 alleging that the value of towers/parts supplied by the appellant under the first contract should have been added to the value of the second contract for determining the service tax liability. .. 10. At this stage only the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the services provided by the appellant are exempted under the two notifications dated 20.07.2010 and 27.02.2010 is being considered. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the service for transmission of electricity was exempted for the entire relevant period by virtue of the notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service provided to any person, by other person for transmission of electricity, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act. . 17. As noticed above, the notification dated 20.07.2010 is in connection with exemption that can be availed for the period up to 26.02.2010 and the notification dated 27.02.2010 is for the period 27.02.2010 onwards. 18. A division bench of the Tribunal in KEC International dealt with contracts with electricity distribution authorities for supply, and/or installation of transmission towers between 01.10.2004 and 31.03.2009. In paragraph 7, the division bench rejected the contention of the department that the benefit of this notification would not be available to the appellant in the following manner: 7. The impugned order did consider the plea of the noticee therein for the benefit of notification no. 45/2010-ST dated 20th July 2010 but concluded that exemption granted under section 11 C of Central Excise Act, 1944 is contingent upon non-levy due to practice in the industry and that the assessee would not fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 45/2010-S.T., all taxable services rendered in relation to transmission and distribution of electricity have been exempted from the purview of Service Tax. The expression relating to is very wide in its amplitude and scope as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in Doypack Systems P. Ltd. - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.). Therefore, all taxable services rendered in relation to transmission/distribution of electricity would be eligible for the benefit of exemption under the said Notification for the period prior to 27-2- 2010. 21. The decision of the Tribunal in Kedar Construction also considered the notification dated 27.02.2010 for the period 27.02.2010 onwards and held that since the exemption is available if the taxable services are rendered for transmission of electricity, the expression for would cover a very wide gamut of activities and, therefore, the activities undertaken by the appellant would be eligible to the benefit of a notification, as was held by the Tribunal in Noida Power Company Limited. The relevant portion of the decision of the Tribunal in Kedar Construction on this aspect is reproduced below: 6. As regards the demand for the period w.e.f. 27-2- 2010, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
