9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 519 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - works contract service - Commercial and Industrial Construction Services - list of constructions undertaken - annual income derived from the financial year 2004-05 to 2007-08 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The activity undertaken by the appellant is a service along with supply of material. The merit classification of the service is as Works Contract Service , which is taxable from 01.06.2007 as held by the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Hon ble Apex Court held that Works contract were not chargeable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007. As the activity undertaken by the appellant is under Works Contract Service , no demand has been made by the appellant under the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction Services . The impugned demand confirmed against the appellant set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against demand of service tax under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services".
Summary: Issue 1: Classification of services The appellant, a Private Limited Company, was investigated for undertaking civil construction works for various clients. The Revenue alleged that the services provided fell under "Commercial and Industrial Construction Services" and issued a show-cause notice for demanding service tax for the period from 2004-05 to 2007-08. However, after examining the documents submitted by the appellant, it was found that the services provided were correctly classified as "Works Contract Service" taxable from 01.06.2007, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Tourbro Limited. The Tribunal concluded that the activity undertaken by the appellant was a service along with the supply of material, falling under the category of "Works Contract Service". Decision: The Tribunal set aside the impugned demand confirmed against the appellant, as the services provided were correctly classified as "Works Contract Service" and not under "Commercial and Industrial Construction Services". The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.
|
