LAWS(CE)-2012-2-14

LALIT CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD

Decided On February 23, 2012
Lalit Constructions Appellant
V/S
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are in appeal along with a stay application against the confirmation of demand under Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS) under Section 65 of the Finance Act. The facts of the case are that during the course of scrutiny of the records, it was found that the appellants are registered as Government Civil Contractor and engaged in the activity of providing, lowering and laying of sewerage and water supply pipeline including construction of chambers, operation, maintenance and repair work to water supply distribution network, underground drainage work etc. to various Government bodies. A show -cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding service tax on the ground that the appellants are providing Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services, Transport of goods by Road services, Work Contract Services, Site Preparation/formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition services, maintenance or repair services to their customer. Thereafter, the demand was confirmed under the category of Goods Transport Agency Services. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants are before us.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides in detail, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed. Therefore, after granting waiver of pre -deposit, we take up the appeal itself for final disposal.

(3.) WE have carefully gone through the submissions made by the learned Counsel and following the decision in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has held that "water supply project is an infrastructure facility and a civic amenity which the State provides in public interest and not an activity of commerce or industry. Therefore, the appellants are not covered under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services". Following the precedent decision in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the activities undertaken by the appellants does not cover under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services. Accordingly, we set aside the demand on this account in the impugned order.