TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period 2012-13 and as such will be liable for payment of service tax - the liability for service tax under WCS in respect of the activity carried out to Joint Stock Company is to be re-determined after extending the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 24/2012. When said benefit is extended the ultimate demand of service will come down from ₹ 3.67 lakh confirmed by adjudicating authority - the original authority is directed to verify such payment of service tax claimed by the M/s Lattice. Appeal disposed off. - Appeal No. ST/50016 & 50199/2016-DB - Final Order No. 50279-50280/2019 - Dated:- 15-2-2019 - Justice Mr. Dilip Gupta, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Vivek Pandey, DR Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate Sh. Vivek Pandey, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan 1. These two appeals are against the order-in-original number 32/2015 dated 25/08/2015. M/s Lattice Interiors (M/s Lattice) were registered with Service Tax Department w.e.f. 2/05/2008 for providing commercial or industrial construction service. The Department received intelligence that M/s Lattice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classifiable under Works Contract Service. The demand for service tax made in the show cause notice was proposed under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection and Commissioning Service. Hence he held that the demand for service tax prior to 01/07/2012 was liable to be set aside. He however, upheld the demand for service tax in respect of Indian Oil Corporation for the service provided during the period 2008-09 as well as in respect of Joint Stock Company, FEAT, totaling amount to ₹ 3,90,208/-. He also imposed penalty under Section 76 but refrained from imposing any other penalty. 5. The Revenue has challenged the portion of the adjudicating order in which substantial portion of demand proposed in the show cause notice has been dropped. The M/s Lattice has challenged the portion of the order in which service tax amounting to ₹ 3.9 Lakhs stands confirmed. Both the appeals are taken together for decision in this common order. 6. Heard Shri Vivek Pandey, Ld. DR for the Revenue, who argued the grounds raised by Revenue. His submissions are summarized below:- a. The Ld. DR submitted that the adjudicating authority has set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity has not passed a speaking order. He referred to the findings of the adjudicating authority and he pointed out that the adjudicating authority has examined all the contracts executed by the service provider, copies of which have been made available to him. On the basis of such scrutiny the adjudicating authority has taken the view that the activities carried out were in the form of Works Contract Service. He referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen Toubro reported at 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) decided on 20/08/2015 and submitted that the Apex Court has held that in case of contracts which are composit in nature involving supply of goods and providing service using these goods are to be held liable for payment of service tax only w.e.f 01/06/2007, under the category of Works Contract Service only. He submitted that the activities carried out by M/s Lattice were undoubtedly in the form of composite contracts and the adjudicating authority himself has held that such activities are liable to be classified under Works Contract Service only for the period prior to 01/07/2012. Accordingly he submitted that the demand for the period prior to 01/07/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racts and has dropped the demand for the period prior to 01/07/2012. He held that the construction activities carried out by M/s Lattice were correctly classifiable under Works Contract Service for the period prior to 01/07/2012 even though the adjudicating authority did not have the benefit of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen Toubro. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro (Supra). The Apex Court has categorically held that composite contracts which involve supply of goods as well as providing service will be liable for payment of service tax only under the category of Works Contract Service. For the period prior to 01/07/2012, the classification of service was required to be done and activities carried out are to be classified under Works Contract Service. The show cause notice issued on 23/10/2013 has proposed the demand of service tax under the categories of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection and Commissioning Service. As such since the classification has been held to be under WCS, we have find no infirmity in the findings of the adjudicating authority to the effect that the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
