TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on’ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT), we find that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue regarding re-classification of the service or for denial of abatement to the appellant/assessee. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 996 of 2011, Service Tax Appeal No. 1031 of 2011 - ST/A/52738-52739/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 5-4-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Appellant/Respondent Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the Respondent/Appellant ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These are two appeals against a common impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd followed by the Tribunal in various other decisions later including CCE, Bhopal vs. Sonali India reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 47 (Tri. Del.). 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, apart from elaborating grounds of appeal, as above, also contested the appeal filed by the Revenue against the same impugned order. It is submitted that all the contracts executed by the appellant/assessee are involving supply of goods subjected to VAT and such indivisible contracts are liable to service tax only w.e.f. 01/06/2007 after the introduction of new tax entry for works contract service . Reliance was placed on the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE CUS, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. r eported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontract. They were registered with the State VAT Authorities under the said category. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Larsen Toubro Ltd. (supra) held that such works contracts are liable to service tax only w.e.f. 01/06/2007. Accordingly, following the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Larsen Toubro Ltd. (supra), we find that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue regarding re-classification of the service or for denial of abatement to the appellant/assessee. 7. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed and the appeal by appellant/ assessee is to be allowed. Order accordingly. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
