TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to be paid on actual amounts received and not on amounts which may be receivable and not yet received. Also the appellants have executed orders worth about Rs. 20 crores and they claim that value of goods involved in rendering of the said services is over Rs. 13 crores. Commissioner has totally disallowed the claim for deduction of value of goods as he has taken the entire value of Rs. 20 crores as value of services rendered. It is not disputed that the appellants have paid VAT on goods valued about Rs. 13 crores. Further, for the period prior to 1-6-2007, the denial of benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 may not be justified in the light of documents submitted by the assessee which contained detailed specifications and value of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible for paying service tax under the category of works contract. Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties as mentioned above. 2.2 Learned advocate challenges the order of the Commissioner on the following grounds : (a) During the relevant period, they have executed the orders worth about Rs. 20.29 crores. A part of these amounts was mentioned as due from sundry debtors but has not actually been received. (b) They have utilized/supplied goods valued about Rs. 13.11 crores while rendering the services and they have paid VAT under different schemes as applicable in respect of such goods. (c) The taxable value excluding the value of goods which was subject to VAT was only Rs. 2,95,64,113/- and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts have failed to produce necessary documents indicating sale of the goods. For the purpose of paying service tax under works contract, the contract should involve supply of goods and rendering of services in a composite manner. Once the appellants exclude the value of the goods, they cannot seek assessment under works contract. 4.1 We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. 4.2 The Commissioner has confirmed the demand treating the amounts mentioned as receivables as service charges received by the appellant. This is erroneous as the service tax is liable to be paid on actual amounts received and not on amounts which may be receivable and not yet received. 4.3 Further, we find that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
