9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod involved in this case is prior to 01.06.2007 - Held that:- The issue now settled in the case of CST vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that The value of the goods/materials cannot be added for the purpose of aforesaid notification dated September 10, 2004, as amended by notification dated March 01, 2005 - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. ST/26217/2013 - A/31406/2018 - Dated:- 25-10-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Vishal Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racts. Show cause notice dated 02.01.2007 and 17.10.2007 were issued on the ground that appellant had availed ineligible benefit of notification No. 15/2004-ST as amended 1/2006-ST, dated 01.03.2006 as they had not included the value of the goods supplied under supply contracts. Appellant contested the show cause notices on merits, filed written submissions denying the allegations. Adjudicating authority, after following due process of law, confirmed the demands on various grounds i.e. benefit of notification No. 15/2004-ST as amended is to be claimed, then the value of goods used is required to be included in the gross amount; relied upon the judgment of Jaihind Projects Limited vs. CST [2010(18)STR 650 (T) to hold that the value of plant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission that as regards the inclusion of the value of free supplies provided by service recipient and used for providing taxable service, is also now settled by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CST vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. [2018910) GSTL 118 (SC)]. 4. Ld. DR submits that there are various contracts which are individual contracts and hence the view taken by the adjudicating authority is correct. It is his submission that if appellant himself is stating that the contracts are individual for supply and services, then it cannot be said that the contracts are Works Contract Services (WCS). He reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of records, the facts as reproduced herein above a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
