TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it was never disputed by the Department that what was undertaken by the Appellant was a composite contract of construction which involved labour and service elements. The grant of rebate to the Assessee as noted in the SCN was itself an acknowledgment of this. If that was never in issue, the question of remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for verifying that fact did not arise - The CESTAT had to examine if the nature of the contracts executed by it was such that would be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. The appeal of the Department is restored to the file of the CESTAT. - SERTA No. 6 of 2017 and C.M. Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification No.15/2004-ST dated 10th September, 2004. Paras 3.5 and 3.6 of the SCN read as under: 3.5. Whereas, Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 referred to above, was rescinded vide Notification No. 2/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 and exemption Notification No. 1/2006- ST dated 01.03.2006 was issued. However, the conditions for availing the abatement of 67% of the gross taxable value as well as the 'Explanation' of gross amount charged under the said notifications were retained in respect of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service'. 3.6. In view of above, it appears that the assessee was engaged in the 'Construction Services' as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. Mr. J.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the Appellant is right in his contention that there was in fact no dispute that what was executed by the Appellant was a composite contract of labour and services. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the CESTAT to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for verifying that fact. 11. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the Assessee had sought to plead a new case before the CESTAT that the contracts executed by it were composite contracts and it was for this reason that the CESTAT remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. 12. On a plain reading of the SCN, it is apparent that it was never disputed by the Department that what was undertak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove the non-service elements from the composite works contracts has been made by any of the aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract. 31. In the aforesaid judgment, it was held that the levy of service tax in Section 65(105)(g), (zzd), (zzh), (zzq) and (zzzh) is good enough to tax indivisible composite works contracts. Various judgments were referred to which have no direct bearing on the point at issue. In paragraph 23 of this judgment, the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
