TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, as admittedly the appellant has not provided any training nor they have raised any invoice towards the training charges. So far the service tax on installation/erection charges( including civil work) is concerned, it is held that the turnover of ₹ 15,79,05,395/- has to be adjusted for the amount of VAT and service tax included in the gross value, and after deduction of these, the appellant shall be further entitled to deduction for the material component as per Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006. The impugned order is set aside and matter remanded for the limited purpose of calculation of service tax payable on the gross value towards erection/installation charges of ₹ 15,25,05,395/-. The appellant is directed to prepare the calculation of admitted tax and appear before the Original Adjudicating Authority for verification and/or adjustment, if any. This appeal is allowed in part and part by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No.53026 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO.51900/2021 - Dated:- 3-9-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Nitin N. Mehta, Consultant for the appellant Dr. Radhe Tallo, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wardha, Maharashtra. Due to this shifting of the project also, there were variations in the total value of the services provided. d) The Contract for provision of services was on all inclusive terms i.e. the total value indicated in the contract was inclusive of all taxes, e.g. VAT/WCT, Service Tax, etc. e) Contract for arranging inland transportation of the goods (imported by PGCIL from GANZ) is concerned, the Appellants had availed services of various transporters and had paid Service Tax on the amount of freight charged by the transporters, under Reverse Charge Mechanism, as a recipient 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) A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ) 10,00,000 NIL NIL Grand Total Rs. (A) 25,71,96,000 23,18,61,363 1,50,77,260 Computation Of Service Tax liability Description Rs. Total gross value as services of erections and works contract, as per invoices 15,79,05,395 Less : amount of VAT paid 35,73,510 Value Inclusive of Service Tax 15,43,31,885 Service Tax, including Cess 1,50,77,260 Service Tax assessable value 13,92,54,625 Service Tax originally paid 95,37,042 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt urges that ld. Commissioner has mis-conceived and erred in taking the amount of projected gross turnover at ₹ 25,71,96,000/-, as taxable turnover on cum tax basis, instead of taking the value of service actually provided, which is relatable to the invoices raised. The amount of ₹ 25.71 crores was the appox value of the three contracts, as is evident from the table given hereinabove. The actual gross turnover during the period under dispute with regard to the services, including material provided PGCIL was ₹ 23,18,61,363/-. 6. During the period of dispute, the appellant has raised the bills on the basis of the actual work done. Further, the bills were subject to price variation clause after taking into account the variations, though the contract was for separate consideration in respect of training to be provided by the appellant to the employees of the PGCIL, however, no training services were provided. Hence, in absence of any consideration, no service tax is attracted. No service tax was chargeable on the Goods Transport Service as the same is covered by the negative list entry (p)(i) of Section 66 D. Admittedly, the appellant have paid the service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 apparent gross value, as per contract/ agreement, of ₹ 25,71,96,000/-. The same is also in contrast to the findings of the ld. Commissioner. All the three contracts are independent contracts , there being no artificial bifurcation and supply of goods and supply of services. Ld. Commissioner has also observed in the impugned order that in relation to the works contract service, the value of transformers cannot be included. 13. In view of Section 66 D (p), we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the transportation charges paid by them, as they are neither a GTA and have admittedly arranged transportation for the service receiver viz. PGCIL, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
