9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 586 - AT - Service TaxService tax liability on laying of wooden and synthetic flooring for both Commercial as well as non-commercial Constructions - appellant submits that as against the total demand of they have already paid Rs. 10,41,868/- along with interest & for the balance demand they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006 - Held that - Activity undertaken towards laying of wooden and synthetics flooring for Sports Stadium do not fall under Commercial & Industrial Construction Services. Therefore, demand towards Service Tax on such activity does not appear to be sustained in law. As regards the services rendered for other Commercial & Industrial Construction, if the department wants to deny the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006, the appellant would be rightly entitled for CENVAT Credit of the inputs/input services used for rendering of output services. Thus the demand would then come down to Rs. 6 lakhs against which they have already paid a sum of Rs. 10.41 lakhs, thus deposit made by the appellant is sufficient for compliance to the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944 - waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount of dues allowed.
Issues:
1. Service Tax demand on laying of wooden and synthetic flooring for commercial and non-commercial constructions. 2. Claim of benefit under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006. 3. Eligibility for CENVAT Credit on input and input services. 4. Classification of services for laying flooring in Sports Stadia. 5. Compliance with provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944. Analysis: Issue 1: Service Tax demand on laying of wooden and synthetic flooring for commercial and non-commercial constructions. The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Original confirming a Service Tax demand of Rs. 53,51,340 on services related to laying flooring. The appellant had already paid a portion of the demand and contested the remaining amount, claiming it was not sustainable under Commercial & Industrial Construction Services. Issue 2: Claim of benefit under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006. The appellant sought the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST, which provides abatement from the taxable amount. However, if the services were considered as finishing services, the abatement would not apply. Alternatively, they claimed eligibility for CENVAT Credit to reduce the liability significantly. Issue 3: Eligibility for CENVAT Credit on input and input services. The appellant asserted their right to avail CENVAT Credit on the duty/tax paid on input and input services used in rendering output services. The appellant argued that if such credit was considered, the liability would reduce to about Rs. 6 lakhs, against which they had already paid more. Issue 4: Classification of services for laying flooring in Sports Stadia. The Tribunal determined that laying flooring in Sports Stadia did not fall under Commercial & Industrial Construction Services, leading to the conclusion that the Service Tax demand on such activity was not sustainable in law. Issue 5: Compliance with provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944. The Tribunal found the deposit made by the appellant to be sufficient for compliance with the statutory provisions, granting a waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount of dues adjudged and staying the recovery during the appeal's pendency. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings and decisions on each matter, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and outcome.
|
