2017 (11) TMI 2009 - AT - Service Tax

Composition scheme for Works Contract - Works Contract Service or not - benefit of abatement as provided under the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - HELD THAT - For ascertaining the fact of entitlement to the abatement benefit and consideration of the activities under the works contract service, the Tribunal in M/S S S TECHNOCRAFTS PVT. LTD., M/S. AHLUWALIA CONSTRUCTION GROUP VERSUS CST, DELHI 2016 (7) TMI 1663 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has remanded the matter to the original authority for deciding the issues afresh in line with the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. OTHERS VERSUS CST, DELHI OTHERS. 2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) and the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT . Therefore, the present matter should also be remanded to the original authority, since period in dispute in this case is subsequent to the period, for which the decision had been rendered by the Tribunal in M/S S S TECHNOCRAFTS PVT. LTD., M/S. AHLUWALIA CONSTRUCTION GROUP VERSUS CST, DELHI. Further, we also find that the other submissions made by the appellant were not considered by the authorities below in the respective orders. The matter remanded to the original authorities for Denovo adjudication in line with the above observations - the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of abatement benefit under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006.
2. Denial of composition scheme for Works Contract post-01.06.2007.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the work executed was composited, involving material supply and job execution, with appropriate VAT liabilities discharged on the supply portion. The appellant argued that the work should be classified under Works Contract Service instead of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. Referring to previous Tribunal orders and a Supreme Court judgment, the appellant requested a remand for a fresh decision on merits.

2. The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, supported the findings in the impugned order denying abatement benefit and maintaining the classification of ongoing projects post-01.06.2007.

3. After hearing both parties and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal noted that a previous final order had remanded a similar matter to the original authority for fresh consideration. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to remand the present matter as well, as the period in dispute was subsequent to the previous remand order. The Tribunal observed that the authorities below had not adequately considered the submissions made by the appellant.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authorities for fresh adjudication in line with the Tribunal's previous decisions and the Supreme Court judgment. The appellant was to be given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before a new decision was reached by the original authority.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the operative portion of the decision pronounced in open court.