9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June, 2007. Further, from the SCN it is found that there was no proposal to confirm the demand under the category of ‘work contract’ for the period 1 June 2007 and thereafter - the work done by the appellant is not classifiable under ‘construction service’ or 'commercial and industrial construction service'. Accordingly, the SCN is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/55763/2013-CU[DB] - ST/A/70559-2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 5-6-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Vineet Kumar Singh (Advocate) Shri G.S. Bisht (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh (Dr. Commr.)AR, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information received from BPCL-appellant have constructed Petrol Bunks, Canopies at retail outlets and the details of the payments made to the appellants since 2004-05 to 2008-09 were received from BPCL. On the basis of such data on the gross payments received without allowing any deduction for the material component, service tax is demanded amounting to ₹ 22,86,777/- along with interest and further penalty was proposed under Section 70, 70(1) of the Act. In reply to the show cause the appellant stated that the service provided by them are covered in the service tax net, but due to lack of knowledge they have not charged the service tax, against work done during the period 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. It was further stated that they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein they are required to execute the construction works along with materials. We further find that the contractee namely BPCL have deducted Sales Tax/VAT, on the material component, at source and issued tax deduction certificate under the State Vat Act. In view of these facts it is crystal clear that the appellant have done works contract which was not taxable prior to 1 June, 2007. Further, we find from the show cause notice that there was no proposal to confirm the demand under the category of work contract for the period 1 June 2007 and thereafter. Under these facts, we find that in view of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE and Customs Kerala Vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. reported at 2015 (39) STR 913 , t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
