Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Caryaire Equipments India P. Ltd. vs Cce on 20 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008[10]S.T.R.121
ORDER
R.K. Abichandani, J. (President)
1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 5,05,902/- of the appellant.
The appellant applied for refund on the ground that the services of erection, commissioning or installation became taxable only w.e.f. 01.07.2003.
2. The appellant has, in the written submissions contended that, as per the circular issued by the CBEC Circular dated 13.05.2004, the installation and commissioning services were not covered under the heading "consulting engineering services". Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Tribunal quoted in the written submissions holding that installation and commissioning were not covered under "consulting engineering services" and that they became taxable w.e.f. 01.07.2003.
3. The learned authorized representative for the department supported the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that the circular dated 13.05.2004, did not stipulate that the services rendered were not liable to service tax under the category "consulting engineer".
4. The issue involved is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in an earlier case and decided against the Revenue in Yokogawa Blue Star Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-II reported in 2006 (3) STR 580, in which a division bench of this Tribunal held that, commissioning or installation services would not be covered in the category of "consulting engineer services". This decision was followed by the Tribunal in CCE, Belgaum v. Karnataka conveyors and Systems (P) Ltd. reported in 2006 (4) STR 190 and by a division bench in Sanghi Oxygen (Bombay) P. Ltd., v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2006 (2) STR 486, as also in CCE, Rajkot v. Gujarat Goldcoin Ceramics Ltd. reported in 2006 (3) STR 670.
5. The impugned order of the Appellate Commissioner upholding the order of the adjudicating authority is, therefore, contrary to the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and cannot be sustained. The impugned orders of the authorities below are, therefore, set-aside and the refund claim is accepted with consequential relief. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court]