TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Construction of sub-stations and other related works of distribution of electricity for APEPDCL/APSPDCL - Re-conductoring works to APEPDCL - Sub contract works erection works relating to 30/11 KV substations with connected lines for APEPDCL - Works relating to provision of Distribution of Electricity services to APEPDCL at APSEZ, Atchutapuram (Visakhapatnam) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute with regard to provision of services in relation to distribution of electricity to the power distribution companies. That Notification No.45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 is service specific. Therefore, the denial of the exemption by the Original Authority has no legal sanctity. Accordingly, following the precedent judgements, the demand of tax amounting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration No. AABCG9813HST001 for rendering of taxable services viz., Works Contract Services and Erection, Commissioning or Installation services and other services. It appeared to Revenue, pursuant to enquiry, that the appellant company is rendering taxable service and have filed returns (ST-3). The period of dispute is 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The issues that arise for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the services rendered by the appellant in relation to distribution of electricity to power distribution companies of Andhra Pradesh (APEPDCL, APSPDCL) are taxable or exempt under Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010? (ii) Whether the services rendered to Educational Institutions, CPWD and Railways are taxable under Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation. 5. After considering the reply dated 2302.2012 of the appellant, the Commissioner Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV Commissionerate has passed the impugned order confirming the demand of Rs.1,71,70,141/-, interest thereon and penalties under Sections 76, 77(2) and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 6. Aggrieved by the above cited order, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant, gave the following break up of demand(s). Sl. No. Description Taxable value (Rs) Service Tax amount (AS PER ORDER) Service tax payable As per Appellant Remarks 1 Construction of sub-stations and other related works of distribution of electricity for APEPDCL/APS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Rs.1,09,26,745/-, the appellant rendered services in relation to distribution of electricity, either directly or in the capacity of a sub-contractor to Power Distribution Companies and the same are squarely covered by the Notification No.45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010. The subject notification number is 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010. 9.2 The Ld. Adjudicating Authority indisputably admitted to the provision of erection and commissioning of electrical sub-stations to the power distribution companies in respect of works listed at 1 and 2 above. However, denied the exemption to the appellant on the ground that the notification is applicable only to the distribution companies or the authorised persons. 9.3 In respect of above services, provided by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE., PuneIII 2017 (49) S.T.R. 91 (Tri. - Mumbai). M. ChadacharamVs. CCE, Madurai - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 268 (Tri. Chennai. 9.6 In respect of Sl Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the above table, the Original Authority denied the exemption only on the ground that agreements were not provided. The appellant has produced two agreements along with the appeal itself in respect of Sl.No.5 above. Three agreements in respect of Sl. No. 6 and 7 were produced before the Tribunal on the day of hearing. 9.7 The services in the above cases of Sl. No. 5 to 7, were provided to Non-Commercial Organisations Universities, CPWD and Railways. The same are covered under the excluded category under Section 65 (25b) read with Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994, Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under section 78 is imposed as per the following case laws: Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs Motor World [2012 (27) S.T.R. 225 (Kar.)] Commissioner of C.Ex. Vs First Flight Courier Ltd., [2011 (22) S.T.R. 622 (P H)] Raval Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Service Tax [2016 (42) S.T.R. 210 (Guj.)] 9.12 Penalty under Section 78 is not imposable as most of the services are either eligible for exemption or non-taxable; taxes wherever payable were paid during normal course along with interest for delay thereon; the small differential tax was paid along with interest and submitted the proof. 9.13 The appellant has paid the penalty amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the Adjudicating authority under Section 77(2) ibid. In view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
