9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit and have also received free supplied items from their clients - Held that:- in terms of Sl.No.7 of notification, abatement benefit is not available to the ‘completion and finishing services’. However, we note that appellant had taken categorical stand before the lower authorities that work was being done by them under work contract and also filed an affidavit to the effect that no free s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said ground. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for examining the applicability of Supreme Court decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) and to decide the demand issue accordingly. We keep the issue of limitation open for the adjudicating authority to re-decide in the light of appellants submissions that they were fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... providing Completion and finishing services of civil structure and were discharging their service tax liability, by availing the benefit of notification No. 1/2006 which allowed abatement of 67%. The revenue by entertaining a view that the said abatement is not available to the assessee, initiated proceedings against them with an issuance of show cause notice dated 19.2.2008 proposing to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the lower authorities that work was being done by them under work contract and also filed an affidavit to the effect that no free supplied items were being received by them from their client. We find that in terms of the latest decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) STR 913 (SC)], the work contract were not liable to se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to decide the demand issue accordingly. We keep the issue of limitation open for the adjudicating authority to re-decide in the light of appellants submissions that they were filing regular returns and were discharging the service tax liability. As such, there was no malafide or suppression on their part so as to invoke the extended period of limitation. 6. We have made it clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
