9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation - it is also noted that the appellant has disclosed all the information to the Department and did not suppress any facts. Accordingly, it is observed that suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of tax does not exist in this case. Hence, the demand of Service Tax by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. Demand of service tax under the category of works contract service for the period from 2007-08 to 2009-10 - HELD THAT:- The construction of complex, which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other contractor and intended for personal use as a residence, is not liable to Service Tax. In the present case, the residential complexes constructed by JSPL in their Angul and Raigarh units were meant for the use of their employees. It is observed that the activity of works contract service undertaken by the appellant for JSPL falls within the ambit of the definition of personal use . Accordingly, the service rendered by the appellant for JSPL is not liable to Service Tax under the category of works contract service. Inclusion of value of free supply materials in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of Service Tax - HELD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of the service during the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 which resulted in non-payment/short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 61,80,751/ (Rupees sixty one lakh eighty thousand seven hundred and fifty one) only (inclusive of Cesses), (c) received advance payments from the service recipients but failed to discharge its service tax liability in proper manner that resulted in (d) non-payment/short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 8,27,385/ (Rupees eight lakh twenty seven thousand three hundred and eighty five) only (inclusive of Cesses) and (e) non-payment/short payment of interest of Rs. 81,955/ (Rupees eighty one thousand nine hundred and fifty five) only. 2. The Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner wherein the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the above demand of Service Tax, along with interest and penalty vide the impugned order. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that they have been providing works contract service to M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited (hereinafter referred to as JSPL ) for construction of residential complexes for its Angul and Raigarh projects. The appellant submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial complex constructed by JSPL was meant for the personal use of it s employees. The appellant vide their letter dated 16.04.2009 intimated the Department that they are not paying Service Tax on the services rendered to JSPL as their contractee has categorically informed that they are not going to reimburse any Service Tax in view of the expert opinion obtained by them. 6.1. Thus, the main contention of the appellant is that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to demand Service Tax in this case, as there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of tax exists in this case. 7. We have perused the letter dated 16.04.2009 written by the appellant to the Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata. For ready reference, the same is reproduced below: - 7.1. From the above, it is evident that the appellant has categorically informed the Department that according to them, the service rendered by them is not liable to Service Tax and hence, they are not paying Service Tax on the said services rendered by them to JSPL. However, on receipt of the above said letter, no action has been taken by the Department against the appellant. 7.2. We observe that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is constructed by a person directly engaging any other contractor and intended for personal use as a residence, is not liable to Service Tax. In the present case, the residential complexes constructed by JSPL in their Angul and Raigarh units were meant for the use of their employees. We observe that the activity of works contract service undertaken by the appellant for JSPL falls within the ambit of the definition of personal use as mentioned supra. Accordingly, we hold that the service rendered by the appellant for JSPL is not liable to Service Tax under the category of works contract service. 9. Regarding the allegation of the Department that the appellant is liable to include the value of free supply materials in their assessable value for the purpose of payment of Service Tax, we observe that in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. [2018 (10) G.S.T.L 118 (S.C.)], the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the value of free supply materials is not includable in the assessable value. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced below: 16. In fact, the definition of gross amount charged given in Explanation (c) to Section 67 only provides for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
