TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, it is fit to set aside the impugned order, keeping all the issue open, and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority - 274 of 2007 - 35/2011 - Dated:- 18-1-2011 - M V Ravindran, P Karthikeyan, JJ. For Appellant : Shri R Krishna Iyer, Adv. For Respondent : Shri D P Nagendra Kumar, Jt.CDR Per: M V Ravindran: This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.6/2007/ST dated 31.3.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Notifications as indicated herein above. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue in the appeal is regarding rejecting the claim of abatement and levy of service tax on gross amount charged. It is the submission that in some cases, steel and cement were supplied free of cost. He submits that detailed written submissions were filed before the lower authorities and 67% abatement was claimed in terms of Notifications No. 15/2004, 18/2005 and 1/2006-ST. He submits that the issue is directly covered by decision of this Bench in the case of Cemex Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Cochin [2010 (17) S.T.R. 534 (Tri. Bang.]. He also submits that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the eligibility to claim 67% of abatement on the gross amount charged, by the appellant, from their clients for executing few contracts. It is undisputed fact that the appellant is getting free supply of cement and steel from their clients. The show-cause notice was issued demanding the service tax from the appellant on the entire amount received from their clients. 6. The question is as to whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 15/2004 dated 10.9.2004 in respect of services related to 'commercial or industrial construction services' and Notification No. 18/2005 dated 7.6.2005 in respect of 'construction of complex services'. The said notifications grant abatement of 67% on the gross value charged by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the steel and cement is included in the gross receipts, the service tax liability arose only after granting abatement of 67% on the gross value as per the notifications herein above referred to. Be that as it may, we find that the point as to the contracts are 'works contract service' was argued before the Tribunal for the first time. From the documents produced before us, we find that the appellant is registered under Kerala Government Sales Tax (KGST) and Kerala State VAT. If the appellant has discharged the sales tax and VAT on the contracts entered into by him on which the service tax demanded, then the question of these contracts falling under the category of 'commercial or industrial construction service' and 'construction of comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
