9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the said judgment as the same was delivered after passing the impugned order - As regard the period post 01.06.2007, though the appellant have made categorical submissions before the adjudicating authority on the factual aspect that in some of receipts the service was provided prior to 01.06.07, in some cases the receipt of amount is towards payment of retention money and is some cases though the service tax paid but under different head of Consulting Engineer service. However all the submissions were not considered by the adjudicating authority perhaps for the reason that when he has decided the taxability pre and post 01.06.2007, he did not feel necessary to consider the said factual aspects - appeal allowed by way of remand. - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax paid under the head Consulting Engineer service. Therefore entire demand raised in the show cause notice is not sustainable. The adjudicating authority, rejecting the said pleas of the appellant, confirmed the entire demand mainly on the ground that the contract for providing the service is composite contract for supply of service and goods, which cannot be vivisected therefore the service is classifiable under the head of Erection, Installation and Commission which was liable to service tax independently during the relevant period. He relied upon various judgments in support of his this finding. He has dealt with the other factual aspect as submitted by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-original, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant admittedly with the supply of material is classifiable as Works Contract and not liable to service tax prior to 01.06.2007 or is classifiable as Erection, Installation and Commission and liable to service tax even before 01.06.2007. We find that this very issue has been finally decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. supra. The adjudicating authority had no occasion to consider the said judgment as the same was delivered after passing the impugned order. As regard the period post 01.06.2007, we find that though the appellant have made categorical submissions before the adjudicating authority on the factual aspect that in some of receipts the service was provided prior to 01.06.07, in some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
