Case Law Details
We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and, prima facie, we hold that the liability to tax shall arise only from 16.6.2005 consequent upon amendment enlarging the scope of the impugned services. The decision relied upon by the learned Consultant is in support of the case of the applicant. In view of the above, we hold that the applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per impugned order. Accordingly we waive pre-deposit of balance amount of dues as per impugned order and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R K PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
DIVISION BENCH
ST/Stay/1415/2010
Appeal No. ST/757/2010
M/s J K & COMPANY
Vs
CST, DELHI
Date of Decision: 21.01.2011
Appellant Rep by: Shri C D Banga, Consultant
Respondent Rep by: Shri K K Jaiswal, SDR
CORAM: Archana Wadhawa, Member (J)
M Veeraiyan, Member (T)
STAY ORDER NO.ST/28/2011
Per: M Veeraiyan:
Heard both sides on the stay petition.
2. The applicant entered into contract with the State Electricity Authority for supplying goods and executing the work of erection, installation and commissioning power lines from one point to another point. The original authority has confirmed the demand of service tax relating to the period from July, 2003 to March, 2005 totally amounting to Rs.10,61,583/- under the head of installation and commissioning and also imposed penalties under various sections. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority.
3.1 Learned Consultant submits that only from 16.6.2005, the scope of services of “erection, commissioning or installation” was enlarged by including the work relating to electricity board and other components used for erection of line for earlier period, the service tax cannot be demanded. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajeeve Electrical Works vs.CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2008 (10) STR 494 and the decision in the case of Power Best Electricals vs. CCE, Calicut reported in – 2008 (86) RLT 660.
3.2. He also submits that a sum of Rs.2,70,125/- stands deposited during the course of investigation even though the same is not payable.
4. Learned SDR reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and, prima facie, we hold that the liability to tax shall arise only from 16.6.2005 consequent upon amendment enlarging the scope of the impugned services. The decision relied upon by the learned Consultant is in support of the case of the applicant.
6. In view of the above, we hold that the applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre- deposit of dues as per impugned order. Accordingly we waive pre- deposit of balance amount of dues as per impugned order and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal.
(Pronounced in the open court)
