"ST/21400/2014 Page 1 of 4 This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.80/2014 dated 22.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 21400 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.80/2014 dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore.) M/s. Innospacer Engineering Tech Pvt. Ltd. No.26, Bhyraveshwara Industrial Estate, Andharahalli Main Road, Hegganahalli, Bangalore – 560 091. Appellant(s) VERSUS The Commissioner of Service Tax Division I, TTMC/BMTC Complex, Domlur, Bangalore – 560 071. Respondent(s) APPEARANCE: Shri M. A. Narayana, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri M. A. Jithendra, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 21270 / 2025 DATE OF HEARING: 07.08.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 20.08.2025 PER: D.M. MISRA ST/21400/2014 Page 2 of 4 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cable trays, mobile storage systems falling under Chapter 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. Also, the appellant had assembled and erected mobile racks, slotted angle racks, heavy duty racks, race ways, etc., in the premises of the customers. Alleging that the activity undertaken by the appellant fall within the scope of ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service’ in terms of Section 65(105)(zzzd) and on the basis of observation by the audit during the course of audit of their report in February 2011, show-cause notice was issued to them for recovery of service tax of Rs.1,45,799/- along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that they are basically manufacturing mobile storage systems, cable trays in their factory; also, they undertake assembling of said cable racks, mobile storage system, etc., in the premises of their customers. He has submitted that the service rendered by the appellant cannot fall under the scope of ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service’ as the definition of the said service refers to only four categories viz., plant, machinery, equipment and structures. Further, he has submitted that during the period in question i.e., from 2006-07 to 2010-11 their turnover was less than the prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh under Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2025, hence, no Service Tax is required to be paid by them. He has submitted that they have not availed cenvat credit on input services or capital goods in providing taxable services. Further, he has ST/21400/2014 Page 3 of 4 submitted that service provided by the appellant of assembling / erection of storage racks is undertaken through hand tools like spanners and screw drivers, which are procured by them from open market and no credit has been availed by them on the same; therefore, the exemption of Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 is available to them. Further, he has submitted that two audits were conducted earlier and also all facts were disclosed to the department, therefore, invoking extended period of limitation in confirming the demand is unwarranted and cannot be sustained. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the appellant had claimed inter alia challenging the applicability of definition of ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service’ to the activity of assembling cable racks, mobile storage systems, etc., in customers’ premises and their eligibility to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 in each year spanning from 2006-07 to 2010-11. The department’s contention is that since the appellant had availed cenvat credit on input/input services and capital goods in their activity of manufacture of cable trays, mobile storage racks, etc., hence, the benefit of Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 in providing taxable services of ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service’ cannot be extended. We do not find merit in the observation of the authorities below in as much as the appellant had categorically claimed that they have not availed cenvat credit on input services or capital goods in providing taxable services of assembling/erection of storage racks in the premises of the customers. A plain reading of Clause (ii) and (iii) of the Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 makes it very ST/21400/2014 Page 4 of 4 clear that the exemption would not be available in the event an assessee avails credit on input service or capital goods which were received in the premises of provider of such taxable services and used in providing the taxable services. In these circumstances, appellants are eligible to the benefit of Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. Besides, we find that the records of the appellant have been periodically audited, they were also mentioning the activities carried out by them in their returns filed with the department from time to time, thus, invoking extended period of limitation in confirming the demand is also not sustainable. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. (Order pronounced in Open Court on 20.08.2025.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv "