9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. The appellant, as a sub-contractor for the builders viz. M/s. SKS Group, Mangalore, undertook construction work for a project called "Binary Homes" during the period of dispute (2005-06). M/s. SKS Group also paid Service Tax on the same work but subsequently claimed refund on the ground that their sub-contractor had paid tax on the same service. The refund claim is said to be pending before the original authority pursuant to a remand order passed by this Bench vide Final Order No. 1206/2009, dated 14-10-2009 passed in Appeal No. ST/52/09 filed by M/s. SKS Group. 3. The present appellant suo motu claimed the benefit of 67% abatement under Notifications 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the cost of materials and goods supplied by the main contractor. It is submitted that the appellant is entitled to claim abatement from the gross value to the extent of 67% in terms of the Exemption Notifications. In this connection, the learned counsel has claimed support from a decision of this Bench in the case of Kunnel Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, 2011 (22) S.T.R. 296 (Tri.-Bang.). 6. The learned SDR has opposed the above arguments. He is of the view that the appellant cannot claim abatement as above without including the value of the goods and materials supplied for the construction activity, in the gross taxable value. This argument is based on Explanation to Notification, which reads thus : "The 'gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med by the builder before the original authority is on the ground that they were not liable to pay Service Tax on the taxable value on which the sub-contractor (the present appellant) paid tax. In the present case of the appellant, the main contention raised by the learned counsel is that the Department cannot recover Service Tax on a given taxable value from both the builder and the sub-contractor. If that be so, the issue is very much connected with the one being agitated by the builder through a refund claim before the original authority. We are of the view that the original authority should deal with both the matters and pass a common order. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow this appeal by way of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
