9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 417 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Works Contract Services or Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services - benefit of abatement under N/N. 01/2006 ST dated 01/03/2006 - Held that - The activity carried out by the appellant is in the nature of Erection, Commissioning or Installation and for the disputed period i.e. 2008-09 to 2009-10, the activity will also be covered under the category of Works Contract Service (WCS) which was introduced in the statute w.e.f. 01/06/2007. Reliance placed in the case of ABL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE, Nashik 2015 (2) TMI 801 - CESTAT MUMBAI in which the Tribunal has held that the assessee will be entitled to the benefit of the Composition Scheme even if the option, there or, is exercised at a later date. The matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for deciding the issue de novo after extending the benefit of the Works Contract Composition Scheme and requantify the Service Tax payable thereon - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Classification under Works Contract Service, entitlement to abatement benefit, payment of Service Tax under Composition Scheme. Analysis: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of the appellant's services under Works Contract Service (WCS) for the period 2008-09 to 2009-10. The impugned order confirmed a demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant claimed entitlement to the abatement benefit under Notification No. 01/2006 ST or payment under the Works Contract Composition Scheme as per Notification No. 32/2007 ST. The appellant argued that they should be allowed the benefit of the Composition Scheme, even though they failed to file an intimation prior to payment. The Adjudicating Authority denied the benefit based on this procedural deficiency. The Tribunal considered the appellant's submission and referred to a previous case, ABL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s CCE, where a similar issue was addressed. The Tribunal in the cited case held that the benefit of the Composition Scheme cannot be denied solely due to a procedural deficiency in opting for it. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's payment of tax under the Composition Scheme, evident from their returns, should be considered as opting for the scheme. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Rules do not specify a format for opting and that the appellant's actions indicated their choice. The Tribunal set aside the demand for Service Tax, following the principles established in previous cases and Circulars. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for denying the benefit of payment under the Works Contract Composition Scheme. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, considering the benefit of the Composition Scheme and recalculating the Service Tax liability. The Authority was directed to decide on penalties accordingly. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing relief to the appellant based on the Tribunal's interpretation of the Composition Scheme rules and precedents. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of classification, entitlement to benefits, and procedural compliance under the Works Contract Composition Scheme, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision and its implications for the parties involved.
|
