TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the service rendered by the appellant is under a composite contract and it is also not denied that material was not the part of service. The Tribunal in M/S. RAJ FURNITURES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, DELHI [ 2018 (5) TMI 1359 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] has already held that the appellants are not required to pay service tax on the services rendered by them either before or after 01.06.2007. Though, this decision has been rendered in respect of another branch of the appellant, facts of the case being identical, the ratio of the same requires to be followed. Thus, the appellants have rendered service under a composite contract and as such are not liable to pay service tax for the period before 01.06.2007; the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that the work undertaken by the appellant is a composite non-vivisectable work involving service and material; the fact that they have used material to the tune of 80% of the value of the Contract and have paid VAT on the same is not disputed; in fact, they have paid duty after availing 67% abatement whereas they could have paid duty on the 20% of the value of the contract; moreover, in view of the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of L T- (2016) 1 SCC 170, composite works could not have been charged duty before 01.06.2007. He also relies upon the following cases: Bajrang Lal Gupta- Service Tax Appeal No. 560 of 2011 (CESTAT Chandigarh). Kumar Builders- Service Tax Appeal No. 1453 of 2010 (CESTAT Chandigarh). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of law. He relies upon Uniflex Cables Ltd.- 2011 (271) ELT 161 (SC) and CST Vs Vijay Television (P) Ltd.- C.M.A. No. 3292 of 2009 (Madras HC) 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of OIO and submits that the appellants have themselves registered under Commercial and Industrial Construction Service and accordingly, show-cause notice was issued denying the abatement as the appellants did not submit any proof regarding the involvement of material in the contract; the issue is not about the taxability of the service but is about applicability of the exemption Notification; therefore, the arguments of the appellant have no relevance. He further submits that the appellants are not eligible for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the subsequent period. As the services of Works Contract became taxable with effect from 01.06.2007, therefore, the demands pertaining to prior to 01.06.2007 are not sustainable. For the period post 01.06.2007, as it is been held that services merit classification under Works Contract services and it is not disputed that appellant is providing services along with material, in that circumstance, the appellant is entitled for abatement of 67% of the value of taxable services and for remaining 33% value of the service, the appellant is paying service tax. Therefore, on the gross value of services provided by the appellant, are not taxable, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Limited ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
