TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority - matter on remand. Transportation of goods by road services - demand - Held that: - the appellant forcefully submitted that major value of services is related to the freight expenses which is below ₹ 750/- per trip. If it is so, it is clearly covered by the Notification No.34/2004-ST. However, this factual position has not been properly considered by the adjudicating authority - matter requires reconsideration. Construction service - demand - Held that: - the appellants were given reconciliation statements according to which there will be no demand exist on construction service. However, reconciliation was not dealt with in proper perspective by the adjudicating authority. As per our above discussion, the entire matter n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related to the railways, which was excluded from the service of works contract after 01/06/2007. Therefore, after 01/06/2007 also the services is not taxable. He further submits that even if the services are considered as repair services, since the service provided to the railways are specifically excluded from the definition of commercial or industrial construction service, the services cannot be included in any other category. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions: a) Sunrise Associates - 2006 (005) SCC 0603 (SC) b) Federal Bank Ltd. - 2008 (10) STR 320 (Tri) c) IBM India Pvt Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-167-CESTAT-BANG d) Dr. Lal Path Laboratories - 2006 (4) STR 0527 (Tri-Del) e) Karnatka Land Army Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal in the case of Khurana Engineering Ltd. - 2011 (21) STR 115 (Tri-Ahmd) . As regards the time bar, he submits that a show-cause notice was issued on 20/04/2011. Therefore, demand upto September 2009, which is for extended period will be time barred, as there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant, as the issue involved is of serious interpretation of service in question and taxability thereof. As regards the service tax demand of transport of goods by road service, he submits that the individual truck owner has provided the services where no consignment note was issued by the service provider. Therefore, the service of transport does not cover under the transport of goods by road service. For this reason, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the lower authorities. Therefore, in fact there is no differential value under the construction services which will be liable for service tax. He submits that there is a minor error. Even for the year 2006-07, the demand was raised only due to non-consideration of proper reconciliation. He submits that even 2006-07 difference is only ₹ 542/-. 5. Shri M.P. Damle, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that most of the submissions made by the Counsel before this Tribunal was not placed before the adjudicating authority. He further submits that as regards the issue that whether management, maintenance and repair service is classifiable as works contract service and the Hon ble Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transportation of goods by road services, we find that the appellant forcefully submitted that major value of services is related to the freight expenses which is below ₹ 750/- per trip. If it is so, it is clearly covered by the Notification No.34/2004-ST. However, this factual position has not been properly considered by the adjudicating authority. There is a force in the submission of the appellant that towards the said transport service no consignment note was issued. Therefore, for this reason also the service cannot be taxed under the head of transport of goods by road service. Both these aspects were not considered by the adjudicating authority. As regards the construction service, the appellants were given reconciliation sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
