2015 (2) TMI 1061 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial or Industrial Construction and Construction of Complex Services - Free Material supplied by service recipients - Notification Nos. 15/2004-ST, dated 10.9.2004 - Notification nos. 18/2005-ST dated 7.6.2005.- Held that - It is contended on behalf of the appellant that this issue, including entitlement to benefits under Notification Nos.15/2004-ST, dated 10.9.2004 and 18/2005-ST dated 7.6.2005 is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. 2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) . No other issue arises for consideration. Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability confirmation, interest imposition, penalty under different sections, under-remittance of service tax, disclosure of material value, entitlement to benefit under specific notifications, applicability of tribunal's decision, refund entitlement.

Service Tax Liability Confirmation and Penalties:
The appeal was filed against an adjudication order confirming a service tax liability of Rs. 2,11,14,031, levying interest of Rs. 19,18,473, and imposing a penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi had dropped penalties under Section 75A and 78 but imposed the penalty under Section 76. The appellant challenged this order.

Under-Remittance of Service Tax and Disclosure Issue:
The proceedings were initiated based on a show cause notice alleging under-remittance of service tax on commercial or industrial construction services due to the failure to disclose the value of material supplied free of cost by service recipients for incorporation into the works executed for their benefit. The appellant contended that the issue, along with entitlement to benefits under specific notifications, was covered by a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a previous case.

Applicability of Tribunal Decision and Conclusion:
The appellant argued that the issue at hand was addressed in a previous Tribunal decision, which the Revenue conceded. As no other issues were raised, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The appellant was granted entitlement to a refund of any tax remitted in accordance with the law, with no costs imposed.

This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents, the proper disclosure of material values in service tax matters, and the significance of tribunal decisions in resolving disputes related to service tax liabilities, penalties, and entitlement to benefits under specific notifications.