Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 62 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - works contract service or not - applicability of rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- There was a lot of ambiguity regarding the category of the services after the introduction of works contract service w.e.f. 01.06.2007 and it is only when the Supreme Court clarified the position in Larsen and Toubro [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] that it was settled that indivisible contracts were liable to service tax under works contract w.e.f. 01.06.2007. Infact, disputes were subsequently also raised and the Supreme Court in Total Environment Building Systems [2022 (8) TMI 168 - SUPREME COURT] affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Larsen and Toubro and held the judgment did not require to be referred to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. In similar facts, the Tribunal in Incredible Unique Buildcon [2022 (7) TMI 1182 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] held that the invocation of the extended period of limitation would not be justified. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the invocation of the extended period of limitation from June 2007 upto September 2010 resorted to in the first show cause notice dated 23.10.2012 issued for the period January 2007 to March 2012. The appellant was clearing the pre-fabricated/pre-engineered steel buildings/structures and the parts thereof from its plants on payment of the excise duty as applicable and under the cover of the statutory prescribed invoices. This duty paid goods were cleared to the designated sites where erection, installation and commissioning were to be undertaken - the appellant has to pay service tax on the value of services as per rule 2A of the 2006 Rules and thereafter avail the CENVAT credit - On calculation of the demand under rule 2A of the 2006 Rules, the appellant would be entitled to refund of Rs. 28.72 crores which, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has stated, the appellant would not claim as refund. However, demand beyond extended period of limitation set aside. - Refund of the amount paid for the for the said period allowed. Appeal allowed.
|