2018 (1) TMI 1583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mohd. Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER The appellant-assessee is in appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of Service Tax with interest and penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in construction of petrol pumps for Indian Oil Corporat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yment of work contract tax, the instant services cannot be subjected to any service tax. 5. It is further urged by the learned counsel that in view of the ruling of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.). Admittedly, the appellants have used materials for execution of the works contract and as such the work a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce‟ is not tenable and palpably wrong. Accordingly, we hold that the service rendered by the appellant is classifiable under "Works Contract Service‟ as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzza). 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by appellant-assessee is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellant, in accordance with law. Since we allow appeal on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X