9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e abatement benefit in terms of the above notifications. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, while rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue, has upheld the view taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. OTHERS VERSUS CST, DELHI OTHERS. [ 2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) ]. The amount which has been paid in excess of the quantified demand by the Appellant may be refunded subject to quantification of the demand by the learned Adjudicating Authority. For the limited purpose of quantification of the demand, it is being remanded to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No.426 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax on 33% of the gross amount charged. Effectively, the abatement of 67% that has been prescribed in the aforesaid notifications, have been availed while discharging Service Tax. It is the case of the department that since the appellant has not included the value of materials supplied by the clients free of cost, which have been used in providing Construction Services by the appellant, the appellant is not entitled to avail the abatement benefit. Accordingly, the Department has disallowed the abatement claimed by the appellant and accordingly has raised the demand of Service Tax on the entire value of gross amount charged to the clients. 3. Heard Shri Akshat Agarwal, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Joydip Chattop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the light of the Intercontinental Consultants (supra) and Bhayana Builders (supra), the petitioner s grievance is well founded. It is accordingly held that in cases where goods are supplied free of cost by the service recipient to the construction contractor of the service provider, the value of such goods shall be excluded from the gross amount in terms of explanation to Item No. 7 of the Notification 1 of 2006. The above ratio has been consistently followed by the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal including the following cases: Vantage International Management Co. vs. Comm of CGST, Mumbai 2021 (48) GSTL 265 (Tri-Mum) CCE, Bhopal vs. Sonali India 2014 (34) STR 47 (Tri-Del) Capital Builders vs. CCE Delhi 2015 (39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
