Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 798 - AT - Service TaxDemand of Service Tax - Supply of tangible goods Services - Held that:- “Supply of camp used for residence of labourers” cannot be considered as a taxable service under the “supply of tangible goods service”. Inasmuch as, camp as such is not supplied by the appellant and the same was already at the site of client. Thus, service tax demand on supply of camp cannot be taxed under “supply of tangible goods service” - the facts as contended by the appellant can only be verified by the adjudicating authority - matter on remand. Renting of immovable property Service - appellant submits that the amount debited towards such service in the Cenvat Credit Account has not been considered by the Original Authority while adjudicating the dispute - Held that:- The matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for proper factual finding where the amount in question has been debited by the appellant from its CENVAT credit account. If the amount has already been debited, as given by the appellant, the demand should be on such account, which should be dropped by the Original Authority. Supply of Manpower Services - appellant contended that they have deposited service tax amount towards such category of service - Held that:- Since there is no specific finding with regard to payment made by the appellant, at this juncture, this matter should also be remanded to the Original Authority for necessary verification. Commercial & Residential Complex Service - it is contended that the appellant was sub-contractor of M/s. L& T only for the construction of the „Road‟, while the demand has been confirmed under the taxable category of “Site Formation Service” - Scope of SCN - Held that:- The adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the scope of SCN inasmuch as it had proposed for confirmation of demand under ‘CICS’, whereas the demand was confirmed under “Site Formation Service” in the adjudication order. Change in classification of service in the adjudication order is not proper and justified - demand set aside. Penalty - suppression of facts - Held that:- Since the Original Authority has invoked the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposed penalty under Section 78 of the said Act, mere non-mentioning the word “suppression” will not deprive the Revenue, in any manner, for which the appeal cannot be preferred before the Tribunal - decided against Revenue. Appeal disposed off.
|