TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no more res integra in view of the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)], wherein it has been held that value of free supplies by service recipient do not comprise the gross amount charged for the purpose of levy of service tax - the appellant should be entitled for availing abatement of 67% - appeal allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2008, the appellant had paid service tax on the taxable services namely, Commercial or Industrial Construction Services and Construction of Complex Services rendered by it, after availing abetment of 67% as provided under Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 and Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. Benefit of 67% abatement claimed by the appellant was denie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 18/2005 and Notification No. 1/2006 cannot be denied towards the value of free cost of material supplied by the recipient of service. In this context, the Id. Consultant has relied on the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. - Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 49 (Tri.-LB). 4. On the other hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed by the Department against the appellant for the period 01.06.2007 is not legally sustainable. 7. We find from the available records that the appellant had discharged the service tax liability on the free cost of material supplied by the service recipient prior to issuance of the SCN. The said fact has also been acknowledged in the impugned order. However, the benefit of abatement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this case is no more res integra in view of the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that value of free supplies by service recipient do not comprise the gross amount charged for the purpose of levy of service tax. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant should be entitled for availing abatemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
