9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior to 01.06.2007 and the service tax has been confirmed under Commercial Construction Services whereas both the Revenue authorities have admitted that it was works contract service which involves construction activity and supply of material, thus, making the contracts as composite contract - this issue has been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been categorically held by the Hon ble Apex Court that composite contract were not taxable under service tax prior to 01.06.2007. In the present case, it was a composite contract involving service and material and therefore, could not have been taxed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide Original 29.06.2009). Order-in- dated 3. On the basis of information provided by the Nestle India Pvt. Ltd., the revenue authorities issued three show cause notices to the appellant, the details of which are given herein below:- Sr. No. SCN No. Date Gross Value Impugned Service Tax Demanded Period 1. ST-V/STC/SNG/R.K. Krishnan/33/07/199/200 dated 09.01.2007 43,08,329/- 4,39,449/- Sep. 2004 to March 2006 2. ST-V/STC/SNG/R.K. Krishnan/236/07/9088 dated 18.10.2007 33,00,041/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Vadodara-II vs. M/s Larsen and Toubro Ltd. reported in 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST. He further submitted that in the present case, the Respondent has confirmed the demand of Service Tax under the taxable head of construction services, whereas the construction services provided by the appellant are in the nature of composite services involving supply of material and the composite contract was not vivisect able. He further submits that in the order-in-original, the adjudicating authority has admitted that the appellant had provided services along with material to Nestle India Ltd. under a Works Cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23-ST (DB) dated 20.10.2023. 8. Ld. DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 9. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, we find that the period involved in both the appeals is prior to 01.06.2007 and the service tax has been confirmed under Commercial Construction Services whereas both the Revenue authorities have admitted that it was works contract service which involves construction activity and supply of material, thus, making the contracts as composite contract. 10. Further, we find that this issue has been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Kerala Vs. M/s Larsen Toubro Ltd. cited (supra) wherein it has been categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
