Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

February 2014

2013 (32) STR 735 (Tri-Del.) Suvidha Engineers India Ltd. vs. CCEs, Noida

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
77. 2013 (32) STR 735 (Tri-Del.) Suvidha Engineers India Ltd. vs. CCEs, Noida

Whether activity of installation of heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe & duct work was exigible to service tax before 16-06-2005?

Facts:

Appellant engaged in the execution of various HVAC projects on turnkey including activities of fabrication, installation and commissioning, obtained service tax registration and started paying service tax and filing of returns from 16-06-2005 onwards. Revenue demanded service tax for HVAC work done from 01-07-2003 to 15-06-2005 after 2 years of submission of details. They challenged the said SCN on the ground that the activity of installation of heating, ventilation, air-conditioning (HVAC) along with related pipe & duct work was included first time in the definition of “erection, commissioning or installation” service with effect from 16-06-2005 onwards and therefore the same was not covered under the definition of erstwhile service and also challenged the demand on the ground of limitation. Respondent confirmed the service tax demand rejecting both the arguments.

Held:

Referring to the definition of “erection, commissioning & installation” service as existed in the statue before and after 15-06-2005 it was held that, though the heating, ventilation, air–conditioning (HVAC) is specifically included in the definition after 15/06/2005, the earlier definition used to cover within its purview ‘installation of plant, machinery or equipment’ and HVAC is nothing but a plant which provides heating, ventilation & air-conditioning and therefore the same gets covered from earlier period and therefore the service tax is applicable on the HVAC installation. However, on the ground of limitation, Tribunal observed that, Appellant had submitted the details pertaining to period 2003 to 2005 on 05-09-2005 and therefore Respondent should have issued SCN within 1 year from this date. The Tribunal held that the SCN was time-barred and demand unsustainable on the limitation ground.

You May Also Like