9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporation Ltd. [PGCIL], during the period of dispute 2011-2012 to 2012-2013, as per details given below : Contract Contract Number Description Value Contracts for supply of goods First C-47210-S0163/CA-I/2992 Supply of Transformers and Equipment and conducting of Type Testing, by Ganz, Hungary, on CIF basis. 3,47,75,000/-Euro [Copy in Paper-book] Second C-47210-S0163/CA-II/2992 Supply of Transformers and Equipment and conducting of Type Testing, by the Appellants on Ex-Works basis. Rs. 75,50,80,000 [copy in Paper-book] Contract for provision of various services Third C-47210-S0163/CA-II/2992 Provisions of various services by the Appellants, including services of: (1) Inland Transportation of goods imported by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipient of the service. In relation to invoices raised for recovery of transportation charges to PGCIL, as provider of GTA Service, the said service was covered in negative list at clause (p)(i) of Section 66D, since no consignment note was issued by the Appellants. Otherwise also even when services of transportation of goods are chargeable to tax, tax was payable by the recipient of the service on reverse charge basis. Therefore, no Service Tax was payable by the Appellants on the services of transportation of the goods imported by PGCIL, from port of import to destination (site of PGCIL). f) As far as contract for provisions of training service is concerned, since PGCIL subsequently felt that training was not required, neither training s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax liabilities and the actual amount of Service Tax payable and paid are as given below: Total Value of Services actually provided Description Value as per Contract Rs. Actual value as per invoices Rs. Service Tax liability Rs. Inland Transportation & Insurance Charges including port handling charges/port clearance charges wherever applicable Covered by negative list at entry (p)(i) of Section 66D, and otherwise also Service Tax was payable by the recipient under Reverse Charge Mechanism 8,81,96,000 7,39,55,968 NIL Installation/Erection Charges, including civil works charges 16,80,00,000 15,79,05,395 1,50,77,260 Charges for training which was contracted to be provided (No training services were provided) 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted the contentions of the Appellants, inter alia, holding that: (1) the Appellants had not opted for Works Contract Composition Scheme; (2) it cannot be deemed or assumed that they had opted for, Works Contract Composition scheme; (3) that in relation to works contract service of installation of Transformers, value of Transformers to be installed cannot be included in the value of works contract and only value of the materials to be used in erection and installation service can be included in the value of services; and (4) that all three contracts are independent contracts and there was no artificial bifurcation of supply and service contracts. 4. However, despite holding as above in favour of the Appellants, the Principal Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is covered by the negative list - entry (p)(i) of Section 66 D. Admittedly, the appellant have paid the service tax as the recipient of service under Reverse Charge Mechanism, as the GTA have raised the bills on the appellant for providing the transport services, the actual receiver of service is PGCIL. 7. The total gross value of service actually provided during the period is Rs. 23,18,61,363/-. That service tax is payable only on the value of Rs. 15,79,05,395/- being the value towards erection and installation charges, which includes civil works (subject to adjustments of material component). Further, adjustment needs to be made towards the value of VAT as well as service tax as the said gross amount of Rs. 15,79,05,395/- is inclusive of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be set aside on the ground of limitation alone, as extended period of limitation is not attracted. Admittedly, there was correspondence between the appellant and the Department prior to the period Jan. 2012, wherein the appellant have provided all the details as per the requirement/notice. However, the show cause notice has been issued only on 13.10.2015, which is more than 3 years since Jan. 2012. 10. Ld. Counsel prays for allowing their appeal with consequential benefit in accordance with law. 11. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Department has relied on the impugned order. 12. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the impugned order is erroneous and mis-conceived as service tax has been demanded on the apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
