Case Law Details
Ram Sewak Tiwari Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Central GST (CESTAT Delhi)
The issue in the matter is about the classification as to: whether the services rendered by the appellant are that of Erection, Commissioning and Installation or are of the nature of Works Contract Services.
Since the contracts are mentioned to be inclusive of installation of tanks, pumps / equipments, etc. the contracts are held to be in the nature of works contract only.
From the appeal filed herein before this Tribunal, it is observed that the non submission of the requisite documents as that of contract, etc. was because of all documents being taken in possession by the Department at the time when anti-evasion had resumed the work contract vide resumption memo dated 23.9.2013 (the documents under the name of panchnama dated 23.9.2013 is found annexed in the file). From the said submission, and in view of the said document it is clear that work contracts, for want whereof the demand has been confirmed by Commissioner (A), were not in possession of appellant since September 2013, rather had been in Department’s own possession. The production thereof was not possible for the appellant, whereas the Commissioner (A) had all opportunity to summon the said record instead of confirming the proposed demand for want of the said documents. From the submissions of the appellant about the nature of the contract, and in absence of any evidence to falsify the same, we are of the opinion that the contracts awarded to the appellant, were in the nature of works contract services. Section 65B (54) of Service Tax Act
We are of the opinion that the services provided by the appellant since involve the goods also which are leviable to sales tax / VAT, the contracts in question are definitely in the nature of works contract. Even if those being the contracts for Erection, Commissioning and Installation service. Since, the property in goods is also involved in rendering the said services, the appellant was entitled for the benefit of abetment of 67% under notification no. 19 of 2013 dated 21.8.2003. The appellant was entitled for exemption of 67% or the gross amount charged as the same was including the value of the pumps, plants and other equipments, etc. Seen from any angle, there appears no liability of the appellant as was proposed vide the impugned show cause notice and as has been confirmed by Commissioner (A) who no doubt has been given the benefit of 67% abetment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
