9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay service tax on the service aspect of the transaction. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - A perusal of the impugned order says that it indeed does not deal with the issue of limitation raised by the appellant and consequently it fails to deal with the imposition of penalties specifically - the impugned order is not a speaking order. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/85021/14 - A/85098/2018 - Dated:- 19-1-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Raju, Member ( Technical ) Shri D. H. Nadkarni, Advocate for Appellant Shri Vivek Dwivedi, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of services provided, the Revenue sought to consider the entire amount paid to the supplier and in terms of Notification No. 1/2006 allowed abatement. The said demand was confirmed along with interest and penalties under Section 76, 77 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 Learned Counsel pointed out that on the entire value of goods imported, they have discharged the customs duty as import of goods. He argued that when the entire values have been considered as value of goods, the same cannot be taxed again as service. He argued that the contract for the import of goods was a composite contract involving sale of equipment as well as charges for erection, commissioning installation. Learned Counsel argued that the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elios (supra) merges with decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 4.1 It is noticed that the issue before Hon'ble High Court was not directly related to taxability but related to waiver of penalties, however, Hon'ble High Court has given its view on the merit of the issue as well. Para 5 6 of the Hon'ble High Court order is read as follows: - 5. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law : Whether in the facts and circumstances of case, the CESTAT, SZB, Bangalore was legal and correct in setting aside penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Act more particularly when the confirmation in respect of demand of service tax and interest leviable thereon against the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in interfering with the levy of penalty and in setting aside the same. We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4.2 In view of the above, the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the service aspect of the transaction. 4.3 Learned Counsel has further argued that the entire value of the transaction cannot be subjected to service tax as the amount paid to M/s Prothrem Engineering Ltd. was in respect of value of goods as well. He argued that the charges for each day of work done by the supplier was valued at 600 GBP per day and therefore, for 18 days, the value of servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
