TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally quoted above) it was considered in greater detail, taking due note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] and others mentioned in para 4 of the Hon’ble High Court order, in the CESTAT order passed in appellant’s miscellaneous application on 09/2/2016 Thus, with due respect to Hon’ble High Court’s order, we find that the CESTAT stay order dated 28/7/2015 readwith the CESTAT’s miscellaneous order dated 09/2/2016 adequately covered the two points mentioned in para 4 of the High Court’s order for the interlocutory purpose of arriving at the amount of pre-deposit. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no ground to alter the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been specifically urged by the Appellant before it, has not been taken note of by the CESTAT. It is pointed out that a further contention raised, but not considered by the CESTAT, is that in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Kerala v. Larsen Tourbo Ltd. 2015 (2) SCC 461 [ Sic ] a distinction had to be drawn between the value of goods supplied as part of the works contract and the value of the services rendered for the purposes of service tax. 5. The Court notices that in a similar appeal before this Court by a sister concern of the Appellant, this Court by an order dated 12th October, 2015 in Service Tax Appeal No.1/2015 ( Ahlcons India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67% abatement under CICS is approximately the same. We, however, are in agreement with the appellant that even when the value of free supplies was not included in the assessment value, it was entitled to 67% abatement in the light of the judgement in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. Ors. Vs. CST, Delhi Ors. [2013-TIOL -1331-CESTAT DEL-LB] . Thus 67% abatement was duly allowed (as the value of the goods was included in the gross receipts) for the purpose of arriving at the value of service. As regards the issue of taxability under the CICS/construction service when the service was rendered under Works Contract, while this issue was touched upon in para 3 of the stay order No. 51340/2014 dated 28/07/2015 (partially quoted abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m abatement available under The Works Contract Composition scheme, 2007 as well. Consequently, pre deposit of ₹ 1.8 crores was directed to be remitted. 3. In this Miscellaneous Application, the appellant seeks to raise a creative contention, already considered in the order dated 28.7.2015 namely, that since works contract is not taxable prior to 1.6.2007, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. and others , the appellant be granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit, in modification of the earlier order. This contention though not considered with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Larsen Toubro, the scope of works contract service was cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
