TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to promotion of business or marketing of the goods - demand do not sustain. Renting of Immovable Property services - appellant submit that they have discharged service tax on the same and have produced the proof thereof, before the adjudicating authority - HELD THAT:- As the Service Tax stands paid, there are no reason to sustain the demand. Refund claim - works contract - HELD THAT:- The appellant has correctly paid service tax under the Works Contract service, there would be no case for refund. All the demands raised, however, are not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 25746 of 2013 - Final Order No. 20346/2020 - Dated:- 29-5-2020 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-Hyd.). On going through the bills raised by ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank on the appellant, it is seen that the contracts awarded were for interior furnishing and made provisions for payment of reimbursable items. In view of the same, it is seen that the services rendered by the appellant are in the nature of Works Contract service, which could not be taxed before 1.6.2007 in view of the decision rendered in the case of Larsen Toubro (supra). With effect from 1.6.2009, we find that the appellant is not taxable under Works Contract Service before 1.6.2007 and the appellant had rightly opted for composition scheme thereafter. The nature of the service provided having not changed in-between, the department is not free to classify the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner. The appellant also submits that in case the tax paid by them could not be treated as payment of tax under the category of Works Contract service, the same may be refunded to them. However, in view of our discussion above, we find that the appellant has correctly paid service tax under the Works Contract service, there would be no case for refund. All the demands raised, however, are not sustainable. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the department, reiterated the findings of the Order-in-Original, however, in view of our discussion above, we find that the same are not acceptable. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. (Order was pronounced in Open Court on 29/05/2020.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
