Urvashi Porwal
Brief of the Case
In the case of M/s SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. CCE, Raipur, it was held that merely because it had entered into four contracts for completing the scope of work would not take away from the fact that it was an operation of erection and commissioning on a turnkey basis and therefore the service rendered was works contract service which was not liable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007 in the light of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro (supra). Further, during the relevant period, the appellant being a body corporate was not covered under the definition of consulting engineer as per the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Simplex Infrastructure and Foundry Works and consequently, the service rendered by the appellant could not be classified under Consulting Engineer Service.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant had a contractual obligation with BALCO to procure, set up and bring into commercial operation captive power plants at their site. The period involved in this case is August, 2003 to November, 2005. The scope of activities included design, engineering, procurement, manufacture, supply, erection, testing, commissioning and reliability run, demonstration of performance guarantees as well total project management in an integrated manner on turnkey basis. Thus it involved composite works. For that purpose they entered into four contracts as under :
