9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment received intelligence that M/s Lattice was not discharging service tax in full for these activities carried out by them. Investigation was undertaken into the activities in pursuance of the said intelligence. The various summons issued by the departmental authorities for collection of information was not replied to by M/s Lattice. The departmental authorities further obtained copies of balance sheets for the years 2008-09 to 2011-12 from the Income Tax Department. M/s Lattice, vide their letter dated 12/08/2013, submitted the details of year wise contracts along with gross receipts. After completing the investigation show cause notice dated 23/10/2013 was issued to M/s Lattice by the department proposing to demand service tax total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the nature of the various contracts executed by the appellant were in the nature of Works Contract Services. He took the view that for the period prior to 01/07/2012 such services will be 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 Rs. 3,90,208/-. He also imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of service tax after the introduction of the negative list regime w.e.f. 1/7/2012 (entry no. 12a). c. The Ld. DR referred to the service provided to M/s Jindal Martech for NTPC Solapur for the period 2010-2011 and 2011-12. He submitted that such services provided will not be entitled to exemption but the adjudicating authority has failed to discuss the reasons why he has set aside the demand in respect of this activity. He referred to the activity carried out for M/s Suresh Agarwal during the period 2010-11. He submitted that the consideration received for such service will also be liable to payment of service tax. Lastly he submitted that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld 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 is liable to be set aside in as much as the show cause notice proposed demand of service tax under the categories of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection Commissioning Service. In this connection he submitted that the findings of the adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he copies of various balance sheets from the Income Tax Department. In response to the show cause notice M/s Lattice have submitted to the adjudicating authority, copies of all relevant contracts, which have been executed for various customers. The adjudicating authority has scrutinized these contracts 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 (Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst this service In this regard it has been pointed out by the Ld. CA that the liability for service tax under WCS is required to be determined after granting the benefit of Notification No. 24/2012 dated 20/06/2012. If such benefit is extended, the liability to service tax will come down and the claim of Ld. CA is that said service tax, after abatement, stands already paid by M/s Lattice. 11. We are of the view that 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 Rs. 3.67 lakh confirmed by adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
