Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1393 - AT - Service TaxDemand of differential duty - Erection, Installation & Commissioning Services - benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 denied - Revenue is of the view that the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of the said Notification as it is purely a service contract - HELD THAT:- There is not dispute, the services in question have been supplied by the appellants along with the materials, for which, the appropriate classification is “Works Contract Service”, which came into service tax net from 01.06.2007. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT], this issue has been clarified and after going through the said judgement, we hold that for the period prior to 01.06.2007, the demand under the category of “Erection, Installation & Commissioning Services”, was not sustainable as the appropriate classification is “Works Contract Service”. Admittedly, no demand has been made for the period prior to 01.06.2007 under the “Works Contract Service”. Therefore, the demand of service tax from the appellants does not survive prior to 01.06.2007. For the period post 01.06.2007, it is held that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No.01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. The said Notification narrates that if the assessee supplied the services along with materials and the value of service cannot be quantified, in that that circumstances, the assessee is entitled for 67% abatement of the total service provided by the assesse. The same is the proportion under “Works Contract Service”, wherein the assesse is liable to pay service tax on 33% of the gross value of service provided. In that circumstances also, the appellant has paid service tax of 33% of the gross value of service provided in question. In that circumstances, the demands against the appellants are not sustainable. Thus, all the demands are barred by limitation as the issue of taxability was in dispute during the impugned period and the show-cause notices were issued by invoking extended period of limitation. There are no merit in the impugned orders and the same are set aside - appeal allowed.
|