9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 161 - AT - Service TaxCommercial or industrial construction service - abatement of 67% under notification 15/2004 ST/notification No. 1/2006-ST - Held that - benefit of the said notification (no. 12/2003-ST) can be extended only if the appellant satisfies the conditions subject to which the benefit thereunder can be granted. CESTAT has held in the case of Mehta Plastcorporation 2014 (9) TMI 178 - CESTAT NEW DELHI that to claim exemption under notification 12/2003-ST it is not necessary that invoices should separately indicate the value of the goods sold and the benefit of the said notification can be granted when there is transfer of possession of goods. Both sides have agreed that this case may be remanded to the original adjudicating authority with a direction that the appellant should be given an opportunity to claim the benefit of notification No. 12/2003-ST. - matter remanded back - Decision in the case of BSNL (2014 (10) TMI 419 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) followed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demands under construction services. 2. Entitlement to abatement under specific notifications. 3. Denial of adjustment of excess service tax paid. Analysis: Issue 1: Confirmation of service tax demands under construction services The appellant's appeal against the confirmation of service tax demands under construction services was based on the argument that the services provided involved more than mere completion and finishing services. The appellant contended that the services included execution of design and plans for complete buildings, which went beyond mere finishing work. The Departmental Representative, however, argued that the appellant's services fell under completion and finishing services category. The Tribunal examined the work-orders and concluded that the services provided by the appellant, such as interior services like partition, plastering, painting, tiling, and joinery work, aligned more with completion and finishing services. Consequently, the abatement of 67% under specific notifications was deemed inadmissible for the appellant. Issue 2: Entitlement to abatement under specific notifications The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of the appellant being entitled to the benefit of notification No. 12/2003-ST for material supplied during service provision if certain conditions were met. Referring to past judgments, the Tribunal highlighted that the benefit of the said notification could be extended if the appellant satisfied the necessary conditions. It was agreed by both parties that the case should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to allow the appellant to claim the benefit of notification No. 12/2003-ST, subject to fulfilling the conditions outlined. Issue 3: Denial of adjustment of excess service tax paid Regarding the denial of adjustment of excess service tax paid, the Tribunal cited a previous case involving BSNL where it was held that substantial benefit could not be denied due to procedural lapses if no malafide intent was present. In this case, as there was no malafide intent on the part of the appellant, and the adjudicating authority refrained from imposing penalties, the demand for adjustment of excess service tax paid was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the demand and remanded the case for recomputation of the remaining impugned demand after allowing the benefit of notification 12/2003-ST, provided the appellant could demonstrate compliance with the notification's conditions. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of abatement under specific notifications due to the nature of services provided by the appellant falling under completion and finishing services. The case was remanded for further assessment of entitlement to notification benefits and the adjustment of excess service tax paid, emphasizing the importance of meeting the specified conditions for availing such benefits.
|
