2018 (2) TMI 1406 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation - abatement of value - N/N. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 and No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - Commercial or Industrial services - Held that - the matter has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd 2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) and it has been held that taxable consideration in the form of gross value in terms of Section 67 cannot include the value of materials supplied free of cost by the recipient of service - demand set aside. Eligibility of the appellant to pay tax on cum-tax value for the period 10.09.2004 to 30.09.2005 - Held that - the matter is before the original authority for re-computation of taxable value - it is fit and proper that the original authority can examine the other points, if any raised by the appellant before re-determining the tax liability in terms of the remand directions in the impugned order. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute regarding the claim for abatement of service tax on construction activities under specific notifications.
2. Dispute concerning the eligibility to pay tax on cum-tax value for a particular period.

Analysis:
1. Abatement Claim Dispute:
The appellants, engaged in construction activities, contested the denial of abatement on the grounds that free issued materials by the service recipient should not be included in the gross value for taxable services. Citing the Tribunal's decision in Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. CST, Delhi, it was argued that such materials do not impact the gross value for service tax purposes as per Section 67 of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, noting that the value of materials supplied free of cost should not be considered in the taxable consideration. Consequently, the findings in the impugned order denying the abatement claim were deemed unsustainable.

2. Cum-Tax Value Dispute:
Another issue raised was the eligibility of the appellant to pay tax on cum-tax value for a specific period. The impugned order had remanded the matter for a re-calculation of tax liability after allowing this benefit. The appellant sought permission to raise additional points during the remand proceedings. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. The Tribunal decided that the original authority should re-examine the other points raised by the appellant before determining the tax liability in accordance with the remand directions in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal was allowed based on these considerations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's arguments regarding the abatement claim and directed a re-examination of the tax liability concerning the cum-tax value issue. The decision highlighted the importance of excluding the value of free issued materials in determining the taxable consideration and emphasized the need for a comprehensive reassessment of all relevant points during the remand proceedings.