P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vadodara-I vs. Jyoti Limited and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (24 Aug 2022)

When assessee is not rendering services as consulting engineer, he is not liable to pay the service tax

MANU/SC/1032/2022

Service Tax

The Revenue has preferred the present appeals dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeals preferred by the respondent assessee and set aside the demand of duty and penalty as per the Revisional Authority’s order.

The Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax merely on the ground that services rendered by the assessee can be said to be services rendered as Consulting Engineer and therefore, liable to pay the service tax. However, considering the various services rendered by the assessee like erection/installation/commissioning of goods at customers’ site and incidentally they may also be providing the services of drawing, design etc., it cannot be said that the services rendered by the assessee was as a consulting engineer. The contract can be said to be ‘works contract’. Hence, the assessee cannot be said to be rendering the services as a consulting engineer and therefore liable to pay the service tax.

Therefore, once, the assessee at the relevant time cannot be said to be consulting engineer and/or rendering services as a consulting engineering the assessee is not liable to pay the service tax on the ‘works contract’ or the contract rendering services as consulting engineer for the period under consideration namely July, 1997 to December, 2000. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restoring the Order¬-in-¬Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner dropping the show cause notice and demand of service tax and penalty considering the nature of services rendered by the assessee. Present Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Appeals dismissed.

Tags : DEMAND   PENALTY   DELETION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved