Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. He drew support to the aforesaid argument from Boards Circulars bearing No.80/10/204-ST dated 17.09.2004 and 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24.05.2010. It is his contention that in both the circulars, while clarifying the doubts raised from time to time, whether certain activities would come under its scope, it is stated that to bring an activity/service under the scope of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service, it is quite essential that all the three activities must be carried out under a composite contract. In the present case, since the Appellant had only carried out the activity of Erection, therefore the construction of Boarder Outposts(BOP) for fencing the border would not come within the definition of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services. He submits that the said circulars are binding on the Department and in support, he has referred to the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries Ltd., 2002(139) ELT 3(SC) and in the case of Paper Products Ltd. vs. CCE, 1999(112)ELT 765(SC). Also, he has submitted that the Circulars issued by the Government, should be considered as an external aid in construction of a statute in view of the judgement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Parle Exports P. Ltd., 1988(38) ELT 741(SC) and in the case of CTT vs. Kajaria Ceramics, 2005(191) ELT 20(SC).