9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 88 - AT - Service TaxWorks Contract Service - Nature of activity - service or manufacture - levy of VAT or service tax - Construction Service - period from 10.9.2004 to 31.12.2005 - HELD THAT - The appellant was paying VAT on the amount during the impugned period of the activity undertaken by the appellant. Therefore, in terms of decision 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 , wherein Hon ble Supreme Court has held that any activity pertains to construction of service where material has also been supplied alongwith the service, the merit classification of the service is under works contract service and no service tax is payable prior 1.6.2007. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the appellant is engaged in the activity wherein the material has been supplied alongwith service, therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellant merits classification under works contract service and no service tax is payable by the appellant prior to 1.6.2007. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against demand of service tax under construction service. Analysis: The appellant appealed against an order demanding service tax for construction services provided to a company. A show cause notice was issued, and the demand was confirmed against the appellant. The appellant challenged this order. Despite the appellant's absence and no request for adjournment, the appeal was taken up for final disposal. The appellant had been paying VAT during the period in question for the activity undertaken. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was established that if material is supplied along with the service in construction activities, the classification is under works contract service, and no service tax is payable before a certain date. Since the appellant supplied material along with the service, it was classified under works contract service, and no service tax was payable by the appellant before the specified date. The Tribunal found that no service tax was payable by the appellant, and therefore, set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.
|
