9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h decided that the gross amount charged cannot include the value of free supplied materials provided by the receiver of the service - thus, there is no justification for including the value of free supplied materials while determining the gross amount charged for the purpose of benefit of Notification No.15/04-ST ibid as amended. Consequently, there is no justification for the demand of service tax. The demand of interest as well as penalties imposed under various Sections of the Finance Act, 1994, are set aside - demand of service tax is already paid and is upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - S.T.Appeal No.3/08 - FO/A/76833/2018 - Dated:- 29-10-2018 - SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI V. PADMANABHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged shall include the value of goods and materials supplied or provided or used by the provider of the construction service for providing such service. After scrutiny of records of the appellants, Revenue was of the view that the value of materials supplied free of cost, should also be included in the gross amount charged since such materials have been used in the provision of service. Accordingly, Revenue proceeded to work out the differential service tax payable by the appellants by including cost of free supply materials and then extending the abatement to the extent of 67%. But before issuance of relevant show-cause notice dated 05.03.2007, the appellant came forward to pay the differential service tax as worked out on the above lines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for computing service tax liability. The Notification No.15/04-ST ibid as amended, has granted the benefit of abatement to the extent of 67% of the gross amount charged for providing services. Revenue was of the view that such amount is to be determined by including the value of free supplied materials. But we find that the present issue came before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 49 (Tri.-LB). The Larger Bench decided that the gross amount charged cannot include the value of free supplied materials provided by the receiver of the service. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, we come to the conclusion that there is no justification for including the value of free supplied materials while determining the gross amount charged for the purpose of benefit of Notification No.15/04-ST ibid as amended. Consequently, there is no justification for the demand of service tax. 9. In the present appeal, it is not in dispute that the entire differential amount of service tax confirmed by the adjudicating authority has been paid by the appellant along with applicable interest even before the issue of show-cause notice. But the same has not been challenged in the present appeal. As per the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court, no such differential service tax is payable. However, in the present appeal, only levy of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
