2019 (5) TMI 227 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - works contract service or Construction Services? - Department was of the view that these services would fall under CICS for the period from 16.06.2005 onwards - HELD THAT - The LAA has found that in some cases both labour and materials have been supplied. However, in some cases, other contract services, for example, those rendered to M/s. Rane Brake Linings Ltd., M/s. Rane (TRW) Steering Systems and M/s. Rane Engine Valve Ltd., the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the appellants concerned have not supplied sufficient evidence in support of their claim that contracts were in fact composite in nature. At the same time, the learned advocate has drawn our attention to the written submissions made by them before Commissioner (Appeals). She pointed out certain purchase orders in which it is shown that materials were supplied. But authorities below have considered this as service simplicitor. Thus, there is some confusion on facts which could be best resolved by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for purpose of ascertaining whether all the contracts involved in the appeal are in fact composite involving both labour and material or otherwise - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Appeal against order upholding demand, interest, and penalties under CICS.
2. Nature of contracts involving supply of materials and rendering of services.
3. Disallowance of abatement for certain works.
4. Applicability of demand under CICS for composite contracts.
5. Consideration of evidence and documents in determining nature of contracts.
6. Confusion on facts leading to remand for further adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand, interest, and penalties imposed under the Construction of Complex Services (CICS). The appellant, engaged in providing Construction Services, had not discharged appropriate service tax on payments received from clients during the period 2005-06 to May 2010. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty, which was modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) by granting abatement to the appellant.

2. The appellant contended that the works carried out were composite contracts involving both supply of materials and provision of services. The appellant argued that the contracts were composite in nature, but the department based the demand on payments received without verifying if the value included the cost of materials. The adjudicating authority concluded that the services did not fall under Works Contract Service as the appellant did not produce sales tax/VAT invoices to show the sale of materials, even though the appellant used their own materials in the contract.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed abatement for certain works, stating they were services simplicitor, while allowing abatement for others. The authorities did not consider documents showing the composite nature of the contracts in the correct legal perspective. The appellant provided necessary documents, but they were not examined thoroughly by the authorities.

4. The demand under CICS for composite contracts was challenged citing legal precedents. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court and Tribunal to argue that demands for composite contracts cannot sustain under CICS. The Tribunal found confusion on facts and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the composite nature of the contracts. If contracts are composite, no service tax should be levied, and demands made under CICS should be extinguished.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the adjudicating authority to consider all evidence and documents presented by the appellant to determine the nature of the contracts accurately. The confusion on facts required a re-adjudication to clarify whether the contracts were composite or not, with penalties not to be imposed due to the interpretational nature of the issue and its long-standing litigation history.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand for further adjudication to resolve the confusion on facts and determine the composite nature of the contracts, emphasizing that no service tax should be levied on composite contracts under CICS.

← Previous Next →