9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Service tax demand based on abatement claim; Identification of service category for abatement eligibility; Contradictory views on inclusion of material value supplied by service receiver; Pre-deposit amount sufficiency. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed a case involving a service tax demand of Rs. 1,52,17,562/- with associated interest and penalty under Sections 76&78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was upheld due to the appellant's failure to include the value of steel supplied by the service receiver when claiming abatement under an exemption notification. The appellant contended that they were registered as a service provider for both Erection, Commissioning & Installation services and Construction services. They highlighted discrepancies in the service category mentioned in their ST-3 Returns versus the actual service provided. The appellant argued that the conditions for abatement differ for each service category. Additionally, the appellant pointed out conflicting decisions on the inclusion of material value supplied by the service receiver, citing cases where inclusion was and was not required. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's order lacked clarity on the specific notification under which the appellant was ineligible for abatement. Despite considering remanding the matter for clarification, the Tribunal refrained from doing so. The Tribunal also observed that the appellant's payment of service tax under one category while filing returns under another category complicated the situation. Ultimately, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's submission that the Rs. 45 lakhs already deposited should suffice as a pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applicable to service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the stay petition was allowed based on the pre-deposit amount.
|
