9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider it necessary to remand the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority who will re-decide the matter - matter on remand. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - The appellant have also received payments to the tune of ₹ 48 lakhs in 2006-2007 and ₹ 49 lakhs in 2007-2008 on which service tax liability arises. However, they have failed to file ST-3 returns nor obtained service tax registration. But for the fact that the Department noticed such activity from the service recipient, the liability for payment of service tax would have gone unnoticed. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has suppressed the material facts from the Department - extended period of limitation rightly imposed. Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The period involved in the dispute is 2006-2007 to 2007-2008. He argued that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE CUS, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.) has categorically held that composite works contract cannot be charged to service tax for the period upto 31/05/2007. The Apex court held that prior to 01/6/2007 when the Works Contract Services (WCS) was introduced in the statute book, such contracts cannot be levied to service tax under any other category. For the period from 01/06/2007, even though the activities were covered under Works Contract Services, the learned Advocate submitted that the benefit of limitation may be extended to them. 4. The learned DR fairly agreed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the categorical decision of the Apex court, the demand for service tax cannot survive upto 31/03/2007. For the period w.e.f. 01/06/2007, the activities of the appellant would be covered under Works Contract Services. The learned DR has made a vehement plea that the activity of the appellant may not be extended the benefit of the Works Contract Composition Scheme. We appreciate the submission made by learned DR and are of the view that before taking a final view about the grant of the benefit of the composition scheme, the relevant contracts executed by the appellant would need to be gone into. For this purpose, we consider it necessary to remand the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority who will re-decide the matter in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
