9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant Shri J.Chattopadhyay , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax has been confirmed against the appellant under the category of "Industrial Construction Service". 2. The facts of the case are that during the period April, 2005 to March, 2007, the appellant under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sented. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal as the same pertains to the year 2013. 5. Heard the ld.A.R. for the Revenue and perused the records. 6. In this case, we find that it is not in dispute that the appellant has taken the activity of water proofing along with materials. Therefore, the merits classification of the said activity is "Works Contract Service" as held by the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... speaks of the "gross amount charged" for service provided and not the gross amount of the works contract as a whole from which various deductions have to be made to arrive at the service element in the said contract. We find therefore that this judgment is wholly incorrect in its conclusion that the Finance Act, 1994 contains both the charge and machinery for levy and assessment of service tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
