9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable being the outside the definition of ‘work contract services’. Residential complex of the Government employee - Held that:- The demand is not tenable as the amount for personal use and outside the work contract. It is also found that the demand created on the value of material is liable to be dropped as under the composite contract only the service tax portion is to be taxed excluding the material portion in terms of the Rule 2 A of composition scheme and Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20/06/2003. All these issues are required to be worked out once again. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority is directed to consider the submissions made by the appellant following the departmental circular and judicial precedent on the issue at ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th effect from 07/07/1997 falling under Section 65(105) (zzd), Section 65(104) (zzq) and Section 65(105) (g) respectively of the Act, as amended. The assessee applied for the centralised registration on 28/04/2010 and sought amendment in their existing registration certificate by way of addition of work contract services and deletion of construction services in respect of the commercial and industrial building and civil structure and consulting engineering services . 3. During the audit the assessee for period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 under Rule 5A of Service Tax Rules, 1994,( hereinwith after referred as Rules ) it was observed that the appellant often filed half yearly ST-3 return late and they have classified the services provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 91 of the Finance Act, 2004 and Section 140 read with Section 136 of Finance Act, 2007, along with the interest and penalty under the provisions of Act. After following the Principle of natural justice the case was adjudicated which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 5. The appellant has contested the impugned order on the following grounds; (i) Ld. Adjudicating Authority erred in classifying the service provided by the appellant under category of ECIS (Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services) as the contract executed by them prior to 1/06/2007 are not classifiable under the category of commercial and industrial construction services and the appellant has rightly classified its taxability service un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les tax charged by the appellant while computing the gross amount of services provided and also denying the cum tax benefits to the appellant in the impugned order. Similarly the imposition of interest and penalties under the provisions of Act were contested by the appellant in the appeal memorandum. 7. Ld. CA, on behalf of the appellant submits that the service tax has been discharged but not appropriated in the impugned order he summarised the demand amount at hand as under; Particulars SCN dated 20.04.2011 SCN dated 21.10.2011 SCN dated 21.12.2012 Total 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es is not tenable as the same is meant for personal use and outside the ambit of WCS 88,88,732 1,37,832 10,724 90,37,288 8. Without prejudice to above, demand of ₹ 19,38,375/- is liable to dropped on the basis of incorrect calculation. The abatement of the 67 % as per the Notification 12/2003-ST was also required to be provided by the Adjudicating Authority while adjudicating the case. The Adjudicating Authority has also erred in charging the service tax on paid tax on the amount under the composition scheme/ Rule 2A of Service Tax Composition Rule. Also the computation of demand prior to 1/06/2007, is not liable to be included in the said order in view of Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.06.2013 9. In view of above he prayed that the demand is required to be worked out again in view of the submissions made by the appellant and also following the ration laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of L T and other judgments as indicated above. 10. Ld AR, on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the ground contained in the impugned order for confirmation of demand. 11. After considering the rival submissions and perusal of case records, we find that the impugned order is having various infirmities as raised by the Ld.CA on behalf of the appellant. The service provided by the appellant pertain to work contract services which is leviable for service tax only after 1/06/2007, and therefore, the demand prior to 01/01/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
