9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the involvement of material and it does not provide for the bifurcation of the material and service portion. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the contract is a composite one and not vivisectible and therefore, qualifies to be works contract. The department s objection that the contract is not dated will not help the cause of revenue. In view of the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] reiterated in M/S. TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ORS., YFC PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, M/S. G.D. BUILDERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR., M/S. NATI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants have paid service tax for the period April, 2007 to September, 2007 under the said Service and from June, 2007 onwards have discharged service tax under Works Contract Composition scheme. The Department was of the opinion that the appellants have re-classified the services rendered by them from Commercial or Industrial Construction Services to works contract service even when there was no dispute about the classification; in view of the CBEC Circular No. 98/2007-ST dated 04.01.2008, it was not open for the appellants to re-classify or existing service after 01.06.2007. A show cause notice dated 21.10.2008 was issued and was confirmed by Order-in-Original dated 17.03.2009; service tax of Rs. 19,17,496/- was confirmed along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions; on the one hand they accepted vide reply to SCN that they did a mistake in re-classifying the service from 01.06.2007 and on the other hand they claim that L T judgement (Supra)is applicable to them and they also submit that they may be given benefit of Notification No. 1/06-ST dated 01.03.2006 for abatement of 67% from the value. He submits that the appellant s case is not covered by the judgment in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd (supra); the department has correctly demanded duty under Commercial and Industrial Construction Service. He submits that as it is brought out clearly in the show cause notice, the appellants did not submit the details of the contract and did not specify whether or not any material or input service was supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusive of all taxes (I.T., VAT, Service Tax, workers welfare cess etc) and other taxes as prevailing on date including octroi, royalty etc. Nothing extra shall be payable on any accord. 8) You shall be paid secured advance against Bricks brought at site @ 70% of basic cost of material (Basic cost of bricks shall be Rs. 2400 per 1000 no s). A plain reading of the contract brings out the fact that a certain amount of material is involved and that the appellant was required to pay VAT etc. on the same and that an advance at the rate of Rs. 2400/per 1000 bricks would be paid to the appellant. It is clear that it talks of the involvement of material and it does not provide for the bifurcation of the material and service po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
