Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Ahluwalia Construction Group Versus CST, Delhi-I

2016 (7) TMI 129 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Waiver of pre-deposit - Valuation - works contract service - the distinction to be drawn between of value of the goods supplied as works contract and the value of service rendered for the purpose of service tax - reconsideration of its earlier order by the tribunal - Held that:- 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 wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hus, 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 of pre-deposit ordered earlier vide stay order dated 28/7/2015.. - Stay order not modified - as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ourt s order dated 01/04/2016. Para 4, 5, and 6 of the Hon ble High Court s order are to be reproduced below : - 4. At the outset, it is pointed out by Mr C. Hari Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant that in the impugned order dated 28th July 2015 the CESTAT has set out only three contentions of the Appellant. The CESTAT has, however, not noted that inasmuch as the service tax demand is for a period subsequent to 2007, the demand under the head construction service was in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er 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 Cour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

015 and 9th February 2016 and revives the stay application filed by the Appellant before the CESTAT for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 2. The appellant has pleaded that in pursuance of the above order of the Hon ble High Court CESTAT is required to consider the two contentions mentioned in para 4 of the High Court s order and pass a fresh stay order. 3. We have considered the pleading of the appellant and perused the earlier orders dated 09/7/2015 and 09/2/2016 passed by CESTAT in this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice and the service tax liability under the composition scheme under works contract service and with 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 ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

td. 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 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below in its entirety:- Per : Justice G. Raghuram : - The stay application was disposed of on 28.7.2015 directing the appellant to pre-deposit ₹ 1.8 crores along with proportionate interest within six weeks and report compliance by 28.9.2015. The order observed that recovery of the remaining amou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of works contract service, defined and enumerated in Section 65 (105) (zzza) of the Finance Act, 1994, the claim of the appellant for immunity to service tax, is misconceived. Benefits of the Larger Bench ruling in Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. and others vs. C.S.T., Delhi and others - 2013 - TIOL -1331 - CESTAT - DEL-LB was given apart from abatement available under The Works Contract Composition scheme, 2007 as well. Consequently, pre deposit of ₹ 1.8 crores was directed to be remitted. 3. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro, the scope of works contract service was considered, in para 3 of the order dated 28.7.2015. It also requires to be noticed that the show cause notice dated 15.3.2013 which is the basis of the impugned proceedings did not allege rendition of the Commercial or Industrial Construction Service defined in Section 65 (25b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice alleged that appellant had provided construction services in respect of commercial or ind .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version