9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering a similar issue, as to whether Revenue Authorities can vivisect a composite contract and levy tax under other various services head prior to 01.06.2006 or otherwise, where it was held that any charge to tax under the five heads in Section 65(105) would only be of service contracts simpliciter and not composite indivisible works contracts. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/362, 363, 364/2009, ST/902, 903, 904, 905/2009 - Final Order No. A/30551-30557/2018 - Dated:- 3-5-2018 - Hon ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member ( Technical ) Shri Venkata Prasad, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner ( AR ) for the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks contract services or CICS. Appellant assessee is aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal dated 20.01.2009 on the findings that the activity under taken by the appellant would amount to an activity which is commercial in nature. The Adjudicating Authority on remand proceedings, again rejected the refund claims on a finding the tax paid even if the execution of work is under work contract pre introducing the tax liability is correct, hence the refund claims were sought to be rejected. Aggrieved by the order of Adjudicating Authority, appeals were preferred to the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority by the impugned Orders-in - Appeal No. 46-49/2009 dated 30.07.2009 held that the activity under taken by the appellant for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under composite contract, which has been always claimed by the appellant. 7. We find that the issue is no more res integra, the Apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd., [2015 (39) STR 913] was considering a similar issue, as to whether Revenue Authorities can vivisect a composite contract and levy tax under other various services head prior to 01.06.2006 or otherwise. Their Lordships in their judgement at paragraph No. 15, laid down the ratio which covers the issue in favour of the appellant assessee in this case. We respectfully reproduce the same. 15. A reading of this judgment, on which counsel for the assessees heavily relied, would go to show that the separation of the value of goods contained in the execution of a works ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forbidden territory namely into such portion of such cost, expenses and profit as would be attributable in the works contract to the transfer of property in goods in such contract. This being the case, we feel that the learned counsel for the assessees are on firm ground when they state that the service tax charging section itself must lay down with specificity that the levy of service tax can only be on works contracts, and the measure of tax can only be on that portion of works contracts which contain a service element which is to be derived from the gross amount charged for the works contract less the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of the works contract. This not having been done by the Finance Act, 1994, it is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
