Orient Poles Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South (Vice-Versa)
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1467 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 29-10-2018
ST/397/2011, ST/41867/2013 to ST/41870/2013 and ST/CO/42245 to 42248/2014, ST/42124/2013 to ST/42127/2013 and ST/Misc. /4110, 41152 – 41155, 40809/2017 – Final Order Nos. 42770-42778/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate for Assessee
Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Revenue
ORDER
Per Bench
The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. The parties herein are referred to as assessee and department for the sake of convenience.
2. The assessees are engaged in execution of contracts for erection, installation of electrical poles for street lights etc. for Government and other local bodies namely Municip
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dt. 28.4.2009
7/200 to 9/2008
Rs.50,25,591 of Service Tax under ECIS
Under section 76 & 78
ST/41867 to 41870/2013
OIA No. 191 & 192/2013 dated 12.6.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(A), Chennai On appeal against OIO No. 81 &82/2011 dated 2.9.2011
SCN No. 339/2010 dated 14.5.2010 & SCN No. 166/2011 dt. 8.4.2011
Oct. 08 to March 2009 And
April 09 to March 2010
Rs.32,45,393/-
Rs.45,33,390/- Demand is under ECIS
Under section 76 & 78
Department appeals ST/42124 – 42127/2013Against confirmation of demand under WCS
OIO No.. 187 & 188/2012 dt. 30.10.2012
SCN No. 290/2011 dt. 25.8.2011 andSCN No. 88/2012 dt. 4.4.2012
April 2010 to March 2011
Apr. 11 to Sep. 11
Rs.27,79,551/-
Rs.33,02,028/-
3. On behalf of the assessee, ld. counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman submitted that in Appeal No. ST/397/2011, the period involved is from July 2007 to September 2008 and the demand made in the show cause notice is under erection, commissioning and installation services. As
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ave been under ECIS and not under works contract service. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) and argued that the entire contracts are composite in nature involving both supply of materials and rendering of service. The Tribunal in the said case has held that after 1.6.2007, the demand of service tax on such composite contracts can be leviable only under works contract service. Therefore, the demands cannot sustain.
4. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus supported the grounds in the appeals filed by the department.
5. After hearing both sides, it is brought to light that the period involved in the present case is July 2007 to September 2011. The demand has been raised in the show cause notice under ECIS. The contract entered between the appellant and the service recipient is a composite contract which involves both supply of materials as well as rendering of service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra) had occas
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ommercial or industrial construction service, construction of complex service and in addition turnkey projects including EPC projects within the definition of Works Contract Service.
7.9 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to reproduce excerpts from the Union Finance Minister's budget speech in 2007:-
“State Governments levy a tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The value of services in a works contract should attract service tax. Hence, I propose to an optional composition scheme under which service tax will be levied at only 2 per cent of the total value of the words contract”.
7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pecialibus non derogant' – 'general things do not derogate special things'. The counsel for appellants have submitted that as per Section 65A of the Act ibid, classification of service shall be based on the specific entries and the more specific description of service has to be preferred. He invited our attention to CBEC‟s Circular 128/10/2010 dated 24.8.2010 which is reproduced as under:-
“The matter has been examined. As regards the classification, with effect from 1-6-2007 when the new service 'Works Contract service' was made effective, classification of aforesaid services would undergo a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under the respective taxable service prior to 1-6-2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1994. The SCN did mention this in the first para itself. However, the proposal for tax demand was specifically made under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service under Section 65 (105) (zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. In such situation, we note that it cannot be a case of simple mentioning of wrong provisions of law as submitted by the Revenue. Apparently, the tax liability of composite works contract is to be considered under works contract services only as per legal position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s L&T Limited. Even in the appeal, the Revenue submitted that the respondent were engaged in construction services liable to tax under tax entry Section65(105) (xxq). The grievance of the Revenue is with reference to commercial nature of the construction undertaken by the respondent and not on the correct classification of taxable activity.”
b. In the case of Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – 2018-TIOL-360-CESTAT-MUM, in res
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ties are accepting the facts that the contracts executed by the appellant are nothing but works contracts, for the period in question, entire case of the Revenue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, their Lordships have very categorically laid down the law that the works contract cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of demand under various other services. On this ground itself, the entire demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so.”
c. In the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem – 2017 (50) STR 147, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:-
“9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro & Ors. has decided thus
'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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of the works contract the value of properly in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract.'
10. In view of this specific decision and the admitted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1st June, 2007.
11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30th September, 2008 is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing 'works contract service' had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1st June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any service other than 'commercial or industrial constr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ories and not under Works Contract service. The demand confirmed in the impugned order under these categories namely under construction service for the period 10.09.2004 to 16.06.2005 under CICS for the period 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2008 cannot also sustain and are therefore set aside. So ordered
5.3 For the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, the demand confirmed is Rs. 26,88,611/-. We note that the appellant has not contested the liability under works contract for this period. The only argument brought forth by the Ld. Counsel is that they have discharged an amount of around Rs. 82 lakhs under this category after the visit of the departmental officers and therefore an amount of Rs. 36,88,611/- demanded in the impugned order should be considered as having been discharged. We find merit in his argument and hence the demand of Rs. 26,88,611/- under works contract service for the period 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 is required to be considered as having been paid, albeit subsequent to the visit o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
impliciter.
c. For activities of construction of new building or civil structure or new residential complex etc. involving indivisible composite contract, such services will require to be exigible to service tax liabilities under 'Works Contract Service' as defined under section 65(105)(zzzza) ibid.
d. The show cause notices in all these cases prior to 1.6.2007 and subsequent to that date for the periods in dispute, proposing service tax liability on the impugned services involving composite works contract, under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or 'Construction of Complex' Service, cannot therefore sustain. In respect of any contract which is a composite contract, service tax cannot be demanded under CICS / CCS for the periods also after 1.6.2007 for the periods in dispute in these appeals. For this very reason, the proceedings in all these appeals cannot sustain.”
5. Following the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that the demand of service tax under
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =