Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 60 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - Benefit of N/N. 12/2003-ST - Works contract service - deduction on the value of materials which was not claimed by oversight - HELD THAT:- Appellant have paid the service tax on the material component which was 55% of the value of the contract, learned counsel draw our attention to the fact that they had discharged state VAT on composition scheme of the total value of the contract and 55% value of contract is material cost has been worked out based upon the consumption of the materials by them and certified by the CA Benefit of notification 12/2003-ST cannot be denied to the respondent. Further, it has to be seen that even for the works contract services, Service Tax (Determination of value) Rules, 2006 provide for reduction of the cost of the materials/property transferred in execution of works contract. The Chartered Accountant’s certificate which was produced by the respondent before the lower authorities, as also various bills, would indicate that the claim of the respondent as to there being 55% of the value of the works contract executed by them, is not being disputed. The first appellate authority has categorically recorded that respondent was able to convince him about the claim based upon documents which were in support of the respondent. It is also noted that revenue is not disputing the respondent’s eligibility to benefit of notification 12/2003-ST. The claim of the respondent for deduction of material cost to the extent of 55% of the value of the works contract has been properly appreciated by the first appellate authority - though the first appellate authority has recorded an observation that the assessee/respondent is eligible for benefit of notification 01/2006, in effect has not extended that relief to the appellant. Hence, revenue’s agitation seems to be irrelevant on this point and is academic in nature. Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The first appellate authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that respondent/assessee has passed the hurdle of unjust enrichment and has not recovered/collected the amount of service tax (claimed as refund) from their customer. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|