2018 (9) TMI 1504 - AT - Service Tax

Management and Maintenance and Repair Services - benefit of abatement in terms of N/N. 1/2006 - Held that - Appellant submits that the services provided by the appellant were correctly classifiable under the Works Contract Service and as such the rate applicable to the said services should had been adopted by the Authorities below, for confirmation of demand - However, he fairly agrees that neither the said plea was raised before the Authorities below nor the relied upon decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT was available at the time of adjudication proceedings. As such the matter requires reconsideration. Matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of services provided by the appellant under Service Tax Department, rejection of abatement claim, correct classification under Works Contract Service, applicability of Supreme Court's decision.

Classification of services provided by the appellant:
The appellant was registered under the category of 'Management and Maintenance and Repair Services' but did not file ST-3 returns or pay service tax. Investigations revealed services provided to M/s IFFCO, Bareli. The impugned order classified the services under Management, Maintenance, and Repair Services, rejecting the abatement claim for Commercial or Industrial Construction Services but allowing it for 'Rent-A-Cab Service.'

Rejection of abatement claim:
The appellant's claim for 67% abatement under Notification No.1/2006 was rejected as the services were classified differently. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the plea for Commercial or Industrial Construction Services but allowed abatement for 'Rent-A-Cab Service.'

Correct classification under Works Contract Service:
The Chartered Accountant argued that the services should be classified under Works Contract Service, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The plea was not raised earlier, and the decision was unavailable during adjudication. The matter was remanded for re-decision based on this argument.

Applicability of Supreme Court's decision:
Both parties agreed to remand the matter for fresh decision based on the Supreme Court's decision cited by the Chartered Accountant. The impugned order was set aside to allow the appellant to present their case and raise all issues before the Original Adjudicating Authority.