TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, which involved sale of goods i.e., construction materials, and also the service of construction. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has in clear terms held that wherever works contract service is undertaken prior to 01.06.2007, involving contracts of composite nature, no demand under CICS or CRCS could survive, prior to 01.06.2007. Service Tax, admittedly, is a tax on the service part and definitely not on the entire value declared / collected and hence, at the outset, we do not appreciate the demand of Service tax on the gross value declared in the S.T.-3 return, which is also done rejecting the appellant s claim under works contract service, but not specifying as to under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... followed by summons dated 26.05.2009. In response to the above summons, it appears that the appellant responded by furnishing party-wise information (contract wise), bills raised month-wise value received from parties, etc., as sought for, for the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09 and also indicated that they had opted for the composition scheme under works contract service. 3.1 Not fully satisfied with the explanation of the appellant, Show Cause Notice No. 41/2009 (C) dated 14.10.2009 came to be issued proposing inter alia to demand tax under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 alleging that the appellant had suppressed amounts of advance received, had suppressed the value of goods and materials supplied or provided or used by them, alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue in demanding the differential Service Tax on the taxable value declared in the S.T.-3 return under CICS thereby denying the appellant the benefit of the composition scheme solely on the ground that all the ongoing projects entered into before June 2007, for which the composition scheme was not available with the introduction of works contract service effect from 01.06.2007, was not justified and hence, the full rate was charged on the gross value of income without any abatement. 6.2 He would also contend that on the very same facts and also alleging suppression, the second Notice came to be issued, raising similar demands. 6.3 He thus contended that the demands confirmed in the impugned Orders-in-Original lack merit in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had also availed the benefit of the composition scheme for payment of Service Tax at the applicable rate, which fact has been brought on record at paragraph 22 of the impugned order, but the only reason for the Revenue to deny the benefit of the composition scheme is that they had not filed any proof for having exercised the option for availing the benefit of the above scheme. For this very same reason, the Commissioner has brought to tax the entire amount of taxable value declared in the S.T.-3 return. 10.2 Service Tax, admittedly, is a tax on the service part and definitely not on the entire value declared / collected and hence, at the outset, we do not appreciate the demand of Service tax on the gross value declared in the S.T.-3 retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
