Page 187 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] HAJEE A.P. BAVA & CO. v. COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR-II 105
2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 105 (Tri. - Del.)

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. I]
Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
HAJEE A.P. BAVA & CO.
Versus
COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR-II
Final Order No. ST/A/51214/2019-CU(DB), dated 17-5-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/2212/2012
Erection of plants - Taxable value - Income derived from supply of
cranes and mobilization/transport of labour whether includible to pay Service
Tax - Appellant primarily engaged in erection of plants, though it occasionally
also supplies cranes and mobilizes/transports labour - For erection of plants,
specific work orders are issued, but when a client requires cranes or labour,
different work orders are issued and therefore, the income derived from these
separate work orders cannot be clubbed with the income derived from erection
of plants for the purpose of levy of Service Tax - Various work orders for fab-
rication and erection were separate from work orders for hiring of cranes and
mobilization/transportation of labour - Income derived from supply of
cranes/mobilization of manpower has been included in the value of taxable
services by placing reliance upon Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of
Value) Rules, 2006, which was struck down - Amount received for supply of
cranes/mobilization of labour cannot be treated as a consideration for the pro-
vision of service under the works contract for erection of plant in terms of Sec-
tion 67 of Finance Act, 1994 - Reliance placed on Rule 5(1) ibid for including
the cost of cranes/mobilization of labour in value of taxable services under
Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 not justified.
[paras 24, 25, 26]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2013 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.) — Relied on ................................................................................. [Paras 9, 21]
Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.
— 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.) — Relied on ......................................................................... [Paras 9, 24]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri B.L. Narsimhan and Narender Singhavi,
Advocates, for the Appellant.
Shri V. Pandey, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Justice Dilip Gupta, President]. - This appeal has been filed
to assail the order dated 15 March, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central
Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur by which the demand of Service Tax has been con-
firmed and an order for recovery has been passed. The Commissioner also di-
rected for payment of interest and penalty.
2. The appellant is engaged in erection and installation of cement and
steel plants and had obtained registration with the Service Tax Department un-
der the category of “erection, commissioning and installation” services. The ap-
pellant claims that it received specific work orders for erection and installation of
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  187