9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of impugned demand is being confirmed by him. Valuation - inclusion of value of free supplies - Benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006 - appellant had paid service tax on 33% of the gross amount - Held that:- adjudicating authority needs to now take into account the judgment of the said CESTAT in case of M/s. Bhayana Builders [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] to re-adjudicate this component of the demand. While doing so the adjudicating authority will, inter alia, need to consider as to what part, if any, of this component of demand relates to completion or finishing work because in case of completion or finishing services, the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST is not available. Needless to say, at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F SERVICE WISE BIFURFICATION OF TOTAL TAXABLE RECEIPTS S. No Particulars Category of service Taxable value Service tax payable as per the impugned order Demand admitted and deposited by the appellant Demand contested in the present Appeal a) Construction of Guest House Building for NTPC Construction of residential complex service and Commercial or Industrial Construction service 1,25,44,494/- 15,10,283 0 15,10,283 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94,31,109 59,23,771 35,07,338 The table above gives the details of the impugned demand confirmed by the said Order-in-Original and the last column of the table gives the amount which the appellants are contesting. The demands at serial numbers d, e f of the table are not being contested. 3. Having regard to the nature of the case and the issues involved, the fact that more than ₹ 59 lacs have already been deposited and with the consent of both sides, we proceed to decide the appeal waiving pre-deposit. 4. The appellants have contended that in respect of the construction of guest house building for NTPC in respect of which a demand of ₹ 15,10,283/- has been confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding recorded by the adjudicating authority that although the appellants have claimed that they have included the value of the free supplies made by the NTPC, they have not been able to link those free supplies with the impugned service rendered by them. Thus the adjudicating authority came to a finding that the appellants have not been able to establish that they have actually included the value of free supplies in the gross amount charged. The appellants have contended that in the light of the judgment of the larger bench of the Tribunal in case of Bhayana Builders, the value of free supplies in any case is not includible for the purpose of permitting 67% abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST or Notification No. 1/2006-ST. We find f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
