2017 (1) TMI 1284 - AT - Service Tax

Works Contract - abatement under N/N. 12/2003 dt. 20.6.2003 - value of the goods used in the maintenance contract taxable or not? - Held that - When the appellant submitted respective documents in support of its claim as per page 100 of the appeal folder in Appeal S/179/2006, it cannot be said that appellant has not provided any evidence to support its claim - abatement allowed - appeal allowed. If the details of goods used in contract are provided by appellant, that deserves examination to ascertain whether the contract involved supply of spare parts/components for the purpose of maintenance. Both sides shall co-operate with the adjudicating authority and work out the value thereof. Once the authority is satisfied that there was use of spare parts/components and value thereof is ascertainable, such value shall not be liable to service tax - appeal remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to examine and determine the value of material used in the contract and grant exemption thereof from taxation.

Summary

Issues:
1. Abatement claimed under Notification No.12/2003 for exemption from service tax on goods used in works contract.
2. Dispute over whether the entire gross value of the contract is liable to service tax.
3. Review of order by revisional authority leading to demand for service tax on materials used in contracts.
4. Examination of evidence provided by the appellant to support the claim.
5. Application of legal principles regarding taxation of goods used in maintenance contracts.

Analysis:
1. The appellant claimed abatement under Notification No.12/2003 to exempt goods used in the works contract from service tax. The Adjudicating Authority granted relief, but a revisional authority initiated suo motu proceedings, reviewed the order, and demanded service tax on the materials used in the contracts.

2. The appellant argued that the value of goods used in the maintenance contract could be determined from the documents provided and should not be liable to service tax. However, the Revenue contended that the entire gross value of the contract is taxable, and the abatement claimed was not permissible due to lack of a basis for examination.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Finance Act, 1944 is not a commodity taxation law. The Adjudicating Authority had examined the material used in the maintenance contract, and the order was found to be legally sound. The Tribunal found no valid reason for the revisional authority to overturn the adjudication order without proper examination of the evidence provided by the appellant.

4. In another appeal, the Tribunal directed both parties to cooperate with the adjudicating authority to determine the value of goods used in the contract. The authority was instructed to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ensure that the value of goods used in the execution of the contract is not taxed.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the first appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Commissioner and upholding the adjudication order. In the second appeal, the case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a detailed examination and determination of the value of materials used in the contract, with instructions to grant exemption from taxation upon satisfaction of the use of spare parts/components.