Arvindra Electricals v. CCE & ST

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(ST) 2044 (CESTAT-Chd) : (2019) 085 ITPJ (S) 0991 Arvindra Electricals v. CCE & ST FINANCE ACT, 1994 --Classification of services--Supply and installation of electric worksErection, Commissioning and Installation Services or Works Contract Services----Where the merit classification of services under Works Contract, therfore, demand of service tax was not sustainable under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'.--Assessee was engaged in the supply and installation of electric works, laying/shifting of high transmission lines, street lightning system, etc. Revenue raised demand under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'. Assessee contended that in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dt. 20-6-2012, services provided to government organisation under contracts mentioned at Serial No. 1 to 12 (except serial No. 2 and 3) were exempted from payment of duty. *Held:* In view of Apex Court decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro, merit classification of said services under Works Contract, therefore, demand of service tax was not sustainable under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(ST) 2044 (CESTAT-Chd) : (2019) 085 ITPJ (S) 0991

Arvindra Electricals v. CCE & ST

FINANCE ACT, 1994

--Classification of services--Supply and installation of electric worksErection, Commissioning and Installation Services or Works Contract Services----Where the merit classification of services under Works Contract, therfore, demand of service tax was not sustainable under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'.--Assessee was engaged in the supply and installation of electric works, laying/shifting of high transmission lines, street lightning system, etc. Revenue raised demand under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'. Assessee contended that in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dt. 20-6-2012, services provided to government organisation under contracts mentioned at Serial No. 1 to 12 (except serial No. 2 and 3) were exempted from payment of duty. Held: In view of Apex Court decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro, merit classification of said services under Works Contract, therefore, demand of service tax was not sustainable under 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services'.