TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have provided the composite contract i.e. with material and they have discharged the VAT, their service is classifiable under works contract service. Thus, it can be seen that as against the abatement of 67% available under Notification No. 15/04-ST and 01/06-ST, the appellant have taken the abatement ranging from 30% to 48%. Thus, despite the availability of abatement as per the above notification, the appellant have paid the service tax on much higher value, for this reason also the demand is absolutely unsustainable. Appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 475 of 2012 - A/10093/2023 - Dated:- 23-1-2023 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Karan Bhuva and Moiz Dhangot (Chartered Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings of the adjudication order. He further submits that the material cost was clearly declared in each and every invoice raised by the appellant to the service recipient and the same was accepted by the service recipient. Accordingly the material cost is clearly identifiable, therefore, the same is deductible from the gross value in terms of Notification No. 12/03-ST. He submits that the adjudicating authority after considering various documents such as copies of invoices, audited annual accounts, copy of VAT returns, income bills, extended the benefit of Notification No. 12/03-ST, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that no evidence was produced with regard to fact of value of material is incorrect and not sustainable. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant have been discharging the service tax bonafidely by claiming the exemption Notification No. 12/03-ST and was paying the service tax, there is no suppression of fact on their part. They were also filing their periodical ST-3 returns, therefore, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable on the ground of limitation. In support of his above submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgements: CCE vs Larsen Toubro Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2004 Ors. Dated 20th August 2015 Appeal No. ST/240/2012 (PC Snehal Construction Co) vide Final Order No. 11094/2022 dated 06.09.2022 (Tri. Ahm.) 3. Shri P.K. Singh, learned (Superintendent) Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterates th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract to the service recipient which includes service and material. Therefore, in our considered view the appellant is entitled for Notification No. 12/03-ST. The appellant have also argued that since they have provided the composite contract i.e. with material and they have discharged the VAT, their service is classifiable under works contract service. We completely in agreement with the appellant. In such case, firstly the service tax is not payable till 01.06.2007 when the works contract service became taxable. Consequently, for the subsequent period also if the service tax is calculated at the rate applicable to the composite works contract, no demand would arise as appellant have been paying service tax on higher value despite the deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,25,930 30% Total 1,17,10,661 1,78,60,673 2,95,71,334 From the above, it can be seen that as against the abatement of 67% available under Notification No. 15/04-ST and 01/06-ST, the appellant have taken the abatement ranging from 30% to 48%. Thus, despite the availability of abatement as per the above notification, the appellant have paid the service tax on much higher value, for this reason also the demand is absolutely unsustainable. On going through the judgement, we find that judgements cited by the appellant are supportive to the case of appellant. 5. As per our above discussion and finding, the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
