TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant was providing exempted service which otherwise is taxable. As Rule 6 (3) was not applicable, the demand made under Rule 6(3) cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 60063/2020 - A/60293/2020 - Dated:- 27-2-2020 - HON BLE Mr. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE Mr. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Tarun Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed under Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a registered contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant are required to pay service tax on 40% of the value of services, therefore, remaining 60% service tax provided by them as an exempted service. Therefore, in terms of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004, the appellant are required to reverse cenvat credit attributable to exempted services. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. For better appreciation of the facts of the case and applicable rules, we are incorporating Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 which are as under:- RULE 6. [Obligation of a manufacturer or producer of final products and a provider of output service]. (3) (a) A manufacturer who manufactures two classes of goods, namely :- (i) non-exempted goods removed; (ii) exempted goods removed; or (b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, we find there is only one transaction of Works Contract Service which is taxable service of which certain portion has been exempted. There are no distinct transactions for two services involved. In such a situation, Rule 6 doesn't become applicable, it is only one distinct service. It is not even the case of the department that the appellant was providing two different services when it is one service where exemption has been provided to certain value would not mean that the appellant was providing exempted service which otherwise is taxable. As Rule 6 (3) was not applicable, the demand made under Rule 6(3) cannot be sustained. 7. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set-asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
