Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Voltas Limited vs Cce & St, Coimbatore on 18 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI ST/92/2005 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 25/2005- ST dated 06.07.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore) M/s. Voltas Limited : Appellant Vs. CCE & ST, Coimbatore : Respondent
Appearance Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate For the appellant Shri R. Chandrasekaran, AC (AR), For the respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. PANDA, Judicial Member Honble Shri V. PADMANABHAN, Technical Member Date of Hearing/Decision: 18.05.2016 FINAL ORDER No. 40839 / 2016 Per: D.N. Panda Ld. Counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabadran filed a fresh vakalat causing his appearance. That is taken into consideration.
2. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that the service provided by them related to the period 01.04.1998 to 30.06.2003. The scope of the service as that has been understood by the investigating authority is revealed from page 138 of the appeal folder which throws light that the appellant was undertaking the job of erection, installation, commissioning of Textile Machineries.
3. Elaborating more on the investigation results, ld. Counsel further says that when the real activity carried out by appellant as discovered by investigating authority was erection, installation, commissioning, that shall not take a different colour by any stretch of imagination since that was the physical finding by the authority on investigation. But, the appellate authority below had misconstrued the service provided by the appellant was Consulting Engineers Service.
4. Appellant further states that the scope of the service of erection, installation and commissioning is beyond the coverage of the consulting engineers service since it covers only consultation aspect without physical involvement with the machinery. Ld. Counsel also submitted that CBEC vide Circular No.79/9/2004-ST dated 13.05.2004 has clarified that the scope of service of erection, installation and commissioning is beyond the scope of consulting engineers service in last para of the circular which reads as under:
The issue has been examined by the Board in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and in this regard I am directed to say that charges for erection, installation & commissioning are not covered under the category of consulting engineer services. Commissioning or installation service will be separately taxable under relevant entry and are not chargeable under Consulting Engineer services. Accordingly, the clarification issued vide the Circular No. 49/11/2002-ST dated 18.12.2002 stands modified to this extent.
5. It is further submission of the ld. Counsel that the erection, installation and commissioning service came to the statute book for levy w.e.f. 01.07.2003. Therefore, the service provided prior to that date shall be beyond the scope of levy.
6. Revenue relied on page-214 of the appeal folder to place para 7.3 of the appellate order. He says that the appellate authority analysed thoroughly what was the activity carried out by the appellant.
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
8. The proposition of the ld. Counsel in the preceding paragraphs are verifiable from the SCN itself which is appearing at page- 138 of the appeal folder. So also, the score of taxation is examined from the activity described by investigation. Boards circular is candid on the scope of the taxing entry. Further, when a taxing entry was not in statue book, proposition for taxing erection, installation and commissioning service during the material period does not arise. Therefore, adjudication order has no leg to stand. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(V. PADMANABHAN) (D.N. PANDA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB
1