9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, it was seen that they had not paid Service Tax on Co-consultancy Services rendered by them and had also short paid Service Tax on the services provided towards Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services. A Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2010 was issued proposing to demand the total Service Tax amount of Rs. 6,04,461/-. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the Service Tax along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order impugned herein upheld the demand of Service Tax on Co-consultancy Services and also upheld the demand of Service Tax towards Works Contract Service after directing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Works Contract Service. He ordered for re-quantification of the demand in such manner. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Kerala Vs. M/s. Larsen & Toubro reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.) to submit that prior to 01.06.2007, the levy of Service Tax on such composite contracts cannot sustain. Even thereafter, the Service Tax demand cannot sustain under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services', as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT-MAD. 3.3 With regard to the demand of Service Tax on Co-consultancy Services, he submitted that the mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upply of materials and discharging Service Tax only on the service portion. That for discharging Service Tax, the appellant has to take the entire value of the contract into account and thereafter deduct the eligible abatement. The confirmation of demand by the authorities below is therefore legal and proper. 4.2 With regard to the issue on Co-consultancy Services, Ld. AR submitted that the appellant had not discharged Service Tax for the disputed period, which is from 2005-06 to 2007-08. Even though the appellant has rendered services only as a Co-consultant, is liable to discharge Service Tax on the amount received by them for rendering such services. The Department has clarified the said issue as to the liability of the Sub-contractor t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant has to be given 33% abatement on the cost of the materials supplied by them and Service Tax can be raised upon the balance amount. When the demand in the Show Cause Notice is under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service, the confirmation of demand under Works Contract Service is highly erroneous and unsustainable. 6.3 Furthermore, in the decision of M/s. Real Value Promoters Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held that the demand of Service Tax under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services cannot sustain for composite contracts for the period post 01.06.2007. For these reasons, we hold that the demand of Service Tax under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services/Works Contract Services cannot sustain an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
