9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various machineries parts along with providing certain taxable services such as, industrial & commercial construction service and erection, commissioning and installation service. During the period October, 2006 to March, 2012, the appellant was discharging their service tax liability by availing the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, by which the appellant is paying service tax on 33% of the gross value of the contract executed by them. As per the said Notification, the appellant is not entitled to claim the cenvat credit on input/capital goods or input services attributable to that project. But in this case, at their Head Office, the appellant is availing the cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is admitted facts that the appellant is availing cenvat credit of common input services at their Head Office. Therefore, they are not entitled to take the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On perusal of records and the arguments advanced by both sides, we find that it is not in dispute by the Revenue that the appellant has taken the activities of erection, commissioning and installation services along with materials. Therefore, the merits classification of the above services under "Works Contract Service" and no demand is raised against the appellant under "Works Contract Service" prior to 01.06.2007. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are afraid that there are several errors in this paragraph. The High Court first correctly holds that in the case of composite works contracts, the service elements should be bifurcated, ascertained and then taxed. The finding that this has, in fact, been done by the Finance Act, 1994 Act is wholly incorrect as it ignores the second Gannon Dunkerley decision of this Court. Further, the finding that Section 67 of the Finance Act, which speaks of "gross amount charged", only speaks of the "gross amount charged" for service provided and not the gross amount of the works contract as a whole from which various deductions have to be made to arrive at the service element in the said contract. We find therefore that this judgment is wholly incor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the services in question is "Works Contract Service" and show cause notices not allege to demand service tax under Woks Contract, therefore, the demand of service tax is set-aside. We also hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set-aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief." In view of this, we answered the Issue No. -I in favour of the appellant and hold that for services provided by the appellant construction of complexes developed by Nagar Panchayat, Building of private college and boundary wall of the different parties, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under construction service but merit classification is "Work Contract Service". 9. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
