Service Tax Appeal Nos. 156 of 2007 and 13796 of 2013 (Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. COMMR A/136-137/VDR-I/2007, dated 27.6.2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara I) and Final Order Nos. A/10134-10135/2017. Case: C.C.E. & S. Tax, Vadodara-I Vs Blue Star Ltd.. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Service Tax Appeal Nos. 156 of 2007 and 13796 of 2013 (Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. COMMR A/136-137/VDR-I/2007, dated 27.6.2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara I) and Final Order Nos. A/10134-10135/2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Alok Srivastava, A.R. and For Respondents: S.P Seth, Advocate |
| Judges | Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) and Ashok K. Arya, Member (T) |
| Issue | Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23 |
| Judgement Date | January 20, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J), (West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad)
-
These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. COMMR A/136-137/VDR-I/2007, dated 27.6.2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & S. Tax, Vadodara I.
-
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents during the relevant period i.e. from 1.7.2003 to 31.1.2005 entered into works contract for supply, installation and commissioning of air condition system. On scrutiny of the invoices issued by the Respondent, it was revealed that the service charges/commission for installation, commission services provided by them was neither separately computed nor mentioned on the body of invoices, whereas they were paying service tax on certain percentage of contracted value. It was further alleged that since in the said invoices they were not showing separately the installation and commissioning charges but in consolidated manner involving supply of plant & machinery or equipment as well as installation and commissioning thereof, it is contrary to the provisions of Notification No. 19/2003: dated 21.8.2003 as amended. Consequently, a demand notice was issued to them on 11.10.2005 for recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 11,20,082/- short paid during the relevant period and proposal for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Section 78 and penalty under the Section 76 & 77 of the said Finance Act, 1944 also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, set aside the adjudication order and allowed their appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal.
-
The learned Advocate Shri S.P. Seth for the Respondent submitted that the issue of vivisecting of works contract is no more res integra being settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). He has submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of this Tribunal in their own case reported as 2007 (3) STR 353 (Tri-Bang.) held that the works contract servie such as the one under consideration cannot be vivisected and subjected to service tax on the service component thereof. It is his contention that there is no dispute of the fact that the respondents had provided works contract services during the relevant period as has been evident...
To continue reading
Request your trial