9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection and Commissioning Service - As such since the classification has been held to be under WCS, there is no infirmity in the findings of the adjudicating authority to the effect that the demand prior 01/07/2012 is liable to be set aside. Demand for the period commencing 01/07/2012 - Held that:- After the amendment to the Finance Act, 1994, there is no need for classification of service into various categories. The demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority for the service provided to Joint Stock Company FEAT is for the period 2012-13 and as such will be liable for payment of service tax - the liability for service tax under WCS in respect of the activity carried out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion show cause notice dated 23/10/2013 was issued to M/s Lattice by the department proposing to demand service tax totally amounting to ₹ 1,40,34,651/- for the periods 2008-09 to 2012-13. Detailed reply was submitted by M/s Lattice to the adjudicating authority. It was submitted that the show cause notice dated 23/10/2013 was served on M/s Lattice only on 27/10/2013. Consequently a portion of the demand for the period 01/04/2008 to 30th September, 2008 was claimed as time barred, being beyond the period of five years provided for issue of show cause notice under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The M/s Lattice submitted details of various contracts executed by them. It was claimed that most of the contracts were for non-commer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the period 2008-09 as well as in respect of Joint Stock Company, FEAT, totaling amount to ₹ 3,90,208/-. He also imposed penalty under Section 76 but refrained from imposing any other penalty. 5. The Revenue has challenged the portion of the adjudicating order in which substantial portion of demand proposed in the show cause notice has been dropped. The M/s Lattice has challenged the portion of the order in which service tax amounting to ₹ 3.9 Lakhs stands confirmed. Both the appeals are taken together for decision in this common order. 6. Heard Shri Vivek Pandey, Ld. DR for the Revenue, who argued the grounds raised by Revenue. His submissions are summarized below:- a. The Ld. DR submitted that the adjudicating authority ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax. Lastly he submitted that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration to consider the above grounds as well as to give detailed findings for the conclusion. 7. The appeal filed by M/s Lattice is argued by Shri A.K. Batra, Ld. Consultant. He also advanced his arguments against the grounds of appeal filed by Revenue. His submissions are summarized below:- i. The Ld. CA submitted that five year period provided under Section 73 of the Act will start from the relevant date. The show cause notice dated 23/10/2013 was served on M/s Lattice only on 27/10/2013; to this effect the Affidavit has already been submitted before the adjudicating authority. If 27/10/13 is considered as the date of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Service as well as Erection Commissioning Service. In this connection he submitted that the findings of the adjudicating authority merit no interference. iii. For the period from 01/07/2012, Ld CA submitted that the total amount of ₹ 3.9 Lakhs confirmed by the adjudicating authority is made up of the service provided to M/s Indian Oil Ltd as well as to Joint Stock Company FEAT as follows:- Particulars Taxable value Rs. Rate Service Tax liability Rs. Taxable category Indian Oil Corporation 1,85,318 12.36% 22,905 Not specified Joint Stock Co. FEAT 29,71,710 12.36% 3,67,303 Total 3157028 --- 3,90,208 iv. He further submitted that the demand in respect of m/s Indian Oil Corporation is pertaining to the period 2008- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro (Supra). The Apex Court has categorically held that composite contracts which involve supply of goods as well as providing service will be liable for payment of service tax only under the category of Works Contract Service. For the period prior to 01/07/2012, the classification of service was required to be done and activities carried out are to be classified under Works Contract Service. The show cause notice issued on 23/10/2013 has proposed the demand of service tax under the categories of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection and Commissioning Service. As such since the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
