TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT ], wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has observed that A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines taxable service as any service provided . All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us. 3. The appellant is not contesting the services against confirmation of duty against them under the category of works contract, maintenance and repair, supply of tangible goods etc.. With regard to the demand of service tax on services provided to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) for construction of Thermal Power Plant, the appellant submitted that the said services merit classification under Works Contract Services and not under Commercial Industrial Construction Services. It is his submission that the said service had qualified as works contract service as they were providing that service along with material, therefore, merit classification as works contract service, not commercial or industrial construction service . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercial and industrial construction service. 8. We find that the appellant is providing the said service along with material, in that circumstances, the appropriate classification of the activity undertaken by the appellant is works contract service , as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE C, Kerala v. Larsen Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) STR 913 (SC)], wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has observed as under:- 24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines taxable service as any service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged for service provided and not the gross amount of the works contract as a whole from which various deductions have to be made to arrive at the service element in the said contract. We find therefore that this judgment is wholly incorrect in its conclusion that the Finance Act, 1994 contains both the charge and machinery for levy and assessment of service tax on indivisible works contracts. 9. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under commercial or industrial construction service. Therefore, demand of service tax of Rs.30,11,274/- is set aside. 10. We further take note of the fact by giving benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, we refrain from imposing penalty on the appellant. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
