9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri Mir Anwar Mohiddin, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 41/2011 (MP) dated 29.07.2011. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding demand of differential service tax, for the period April, 2004 to December, 2009 from the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denced by discharge of VAT to the State Government which in itself enough as these are towards supply of the material and Learned Counsel will rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCEC, Kerala Vs. Larsen & Toubro [2015 (39) STR 913] to submit that the entire repair activity undertaken by the appellant being a works contract, service tax liability either pre or post 01.06.2007 do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant would get classified under works contract for both the reasons i.e. that the appellant has paid State Government VAT on the materials on 70% of the value and service tax is paid on balance amount evaluated @ 30% of value charged. In any case, we find that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L&T (supra) is applicable in the case in hand. Further the services rendered by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of L & T Ltd (supra), became chargeable to service tax only from 01.06.2007. We also find force in the argument of the appellant that after 01.06.2007, the definition of works contract did not encompass all services and specifically it did not include maintenance and repair services. Therefore, no service tax was chargeable from the appellant at all. In other words, no service tax c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
