Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (1) TMI 1132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... COURT], where it was held that the works contract service such as the one under consideration cannot be vivisected and subjected to service tax on the service component thereof - In the present case starting from the show cause notice level, it has been alleged that even though the Respondent had rendered Works Contract service and received consolidated charges towards such supply and service, they failed to discharge the service tax on the service component of the charges by vivisecting the works contract into supply and service. Thus, the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case - demand set aside - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No. 156 of 2007 and 13796 of 2013 - A/101 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... proposal for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Section 78 and penalty under the Section 76 77 of the said Finance Act,1944 also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, set aside the adjudication order and allowed their appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri S.P. Seth for the Respondent submitted that the issue of vivisecting of works contract is no more res integra being settled by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) . He has submitted that the learned Commiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his has, in fact, been done by the Finance Act, 1994 Act is wholly incorrect as it ignores the second Gannon Dunkerley decision of this Court. Further, the finding that Section 67 of the Finance Act, which speaks of gross amount charged , only speaks of the gross amount charged for service provided and not the gross amount of the works contract as a whole from which various deductions have to be made to arrive at the service element in the said contract. We find therefore that this judgment is wholly incorrect in its conclusion that the Finance Act, 1994 contains both the charge and machinery for levy and assessment of service tax on indivisible works contracts. 42. It remains to consider the argument of Shri Radhakrishnan that post 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates