TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity involved, apart from service, supply of goods and it was a composite activity. Since demand has not been raised under correct head, it cannot be sustained. Reliance placed in the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1363 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that the entry under Section 65(105)(zzd) is liable to be invoked only for construction simpliciter. Therefore, there is no scope for vivisection to isolate the service component of the contract. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- It is seen that the practice was in complete knowledge of Revenue as the appellants had in their letter dated 2.6.2006 in response to summons dt. 7.11.2005 elaborately described their activities and their views on the issue - ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um sections on job work basis and repairs of old buildings. In respect of these activities they were discharging Service Tax liability. A notice was issued to the appellant alleging that the activity undertaken by them would come under the ambit of completion and finishing services in relation to residential complex under the category of 'construction of complex service' and not under 'erection commissioning and installation'. It was alleged that they were liable to pay the Service Tax w.e.f. 16.6.2005, consequently no abatement was available since the job was completion and finishing service. 2.1 It was seen that the appellant had paid Service Tax for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 calculating on the basis of ₹ 10/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion of value of goods from the assessable value. The impugned order does not allowed the reduction of value of goods on which VAT has been paid. The appellant relied on the following decision to assert that this cannot be done:- (a) Ircon International Ltd. - 2017-TIOL-1650-CESTAT-DEL. (b) Vistar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (44) STR 675 (Tri-Del) 2.4 Learned Counsel further argued that show-cause notice has been issued invoking the extended period of limitation. He pointed out that way back on 2 nd June, 2006 they had informed the Superintendent (Prev.) regarding the existing activity having been undertaken by them and their view regarding their liability of Service Tax. This letter was in response to the summons issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and consequently there was no actual sale of goods between the noticee and the service recipient. 4.1 We find that the conclusion reached by the appellate authority is erroneous. Just because VAT is paid at composite rate, it cannot be said that there is no sale of goods involved. In the instant case, it is seen that the major amount charged by the appellate relates to the value of material. In para 20 of the appeal memo, the appellants have submitted a table which contains the entire details. The said table, it is claimed, was also submitted to the adjudicating authority. 4.2 Moreover, it is seen that the activity involved, apart from service, supply of goods and it was a composite activity. In this regard, the decision of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Tribunal in the case of URC Construction (P) Ltd. - 2017 (50) STR 147 (Tri-Chennai), where in para 11, the following has been observed: - 11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30 th September is concerned, it is seen that neither of the two show cause notices adduce to leviability of tax for rendering 'works contract service'. On the contrary, the submission of the appellant that they had been providing works contract service had been rejected by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, even as the services rendered by them are taxable for the period from 1 st June, 2007 to 30 th September, 2008 the narrow confines of the show cause notices do not permit confirmation of demand of tax on any servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
