9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant falls outside the scope and purview of the above notifications for claiming such abatement - Held that: - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Larson and Turbo Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] have held that such contracts are liable to service tax only w.e.f. 01.06.2007 when a new tax entry under the category of “works contract service” was introduced for the first time in the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/852/2010-CU[DB] - ST/A/56040/2016-CU[DB] - Dated:- 23-8-2016 - S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Mr. A. K. Batra, (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. Govind Dixit DR for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Service Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant was denied by the Department mainly on the ground that upon initiation of enquiry proceedings, since the appellant had discharged the service tax liability on the value of free supply material, the case of the appellant falls outside the scope and purview of the above notifications for claiming such abetment. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xecuted by the appellant involved transfer of property in goods and also rendering of service. Thus, the activities undertaken by the appellant pursuant to the contract fall under the category of works contracts service. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larson and Turbo Ltd. (supra) have held that such contracts are liable to service tax only w.e.f. 01.06.2007 when a new tax entry under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for alleging fraud, suppression etc. is not legally sustainable. Therefore, the service tax demand is not sustainable even after the period 01.06.2007. 8. In view of above, we do not find any merits in the impugned order and thus, after setting aside the same, we allow the appeal in favour of the appellant. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in the open court) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
