2023 (12) TMI 82 - AT - Service Tax

Abatement claim - Erection Commissioning and Installation service - contracts were indivisible contracts involving supply of material and labour - benefit of N/N. 12/2003 denied on the ground that their bill did not specifically show description or value of the item sold during the provision of the sale service - HELD THAT - The show cause notice has been issued to the Appellant demanding service tax. The annexure to the show cause notice shows that the demand has been calculated considering the entire consideration received by the Appellant as the assessable value. It is seen that the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 grants abatement in respect of Erection Commissioning and Installation Service - It is seen that in terms of the aforesaid Notifications the Appellant to be entitled to benefit of abatement of 67% for the purpose of Erection Commissioning and Installation Service. This aspect of the dispute has not been examined by the lower authority. The impugned order is therefore set aside and matter into the orders is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to examine if the Appellant are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 01/2006-ST - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against demand of Service Tax under Erection, Commissioning and Installation service with respect to abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST and Notification No. 12/2003.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST:
The Appellant, an electrical contractor, was discharging service tax under Erection, Commissioning and Installation service with 67% abatement as per Notification No. 1/2006-ST. However, a show cause notice was issued demanding service tax on the entire value without allowing the abatement. The Appellant claimed benefit under Notification No. 12/2003, which was denied due to lack of specific description or value in the bill for items sold during the service provision. The Tribunal noted that the demand was calculated without considering the abatement granted under Notification No. 1/2006-ST. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to determine the Appellant's eligibility for the abatement.

Issue 2 - Benefit under Notification No. 12/2003:
The Appellant also sought benefit under Notification No. 12/2003, which was denied initially. The denial was based on the bill not clearly showing the description or value of items sold during the service provision. This issue was considered along with the abatement issue under Notification No. 1/2006-ST.

In conclusion, the impugned order demanding service tax without considering the abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST was set aside, and the matter was remanded for further examination of the eligibility for the abatement. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.