Page 155 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] SUBHASH PIPES LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI 241
REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant.
Shri H.S. Brar, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Raju, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed by M/s.
Subhash Pipes Ltd. against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing
the abatement in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 while
confirming the demand of service tax on the balance amount along with penalty
and interest thereon.
2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 3-9-2019, 9-8-2016 and 17-2-2017.
However, nobody appeared even on 21-10-2019, when the matter was fixed to-
day for final disposal, therefore, the matter is being taken for decision ex parte.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant laid pipeline for Executive
Engineer, MCPH Division No. 2, Chandigarh. The contract with Executive Engi-
neer included designing, supplying, laying, cutting, joining and commissioning
of pipeline from U.T. Boundary to Water Works, Sector 39, Chandigarh. The con-
tract with Executive Engineer also included designing, supplying, laying, cut-
ting, joining, testing and commissioning of pipeline from Village Nddo Majra to
Water Works, Ghasitpur and to Water Works at 12 Cross Road, Ambala Can-
tonment. A demand of service tax was raised on the appellant on the head of
erection, commissioning or installation service. The said demand was confirmed
by the original adjudicating authority. The first appellate authority modified the
demand by allowing the abatement in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T.,
dated 20-6-2003. The demand along with penalty and interest on balance value
after abatement was confirmed in respect of balance value after abatement in
terms of aforesaid notification.
4. From the appeal memorandum, it is seen that the appellant relied on
the various case laws wherein none of them dealt with exactly identical issue.
The said appeal memorandum does not exactly show how exactly the ratio of the
said case laws is applicable to the instant case. We find that the Commissioner
(Appeals) extracted the definition of the taxable service under the head of erec-
tion, commissioning or installation in details. She has noticed that the said ser-
vice is defined as follows :
“(I) From 10-9-2004 to 15-6-2005
‘Erection, commissioning or installation means any service provided
by a commissioning and installation agency in relation to erection,
commissioning or installation of plant, machinery or equipment.’
(II) From 16-6-2005 to 30-4-2006
‘Erection, commissioning or installation means any service provided
by a commissioning and installation agency, in relation to -
(a) electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fit-
ting thereof; or
(b) plumbing, drain laying or other installation for transport of
fluids; or
(c) heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related
pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work; or
(d) thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or wa-
ter proofing; or
(e) lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or travelators; or
(f) such other similar services.”
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  155