9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for classifying the service as works contract services. It is further found that the adjudicating authority has denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that appellant have not submitted the input service invoices. However, the appellant had submitted before the adjudicating authority, the list of invoices, on which Cenvat credit was claimed. It was incumbent on the Learned Commissioner to call for the invoices if he feels so at the time of adjudication instead of outrightly rejecting the claim of the appellant of Cenvat credit. Demand under the head of supply of tangible goods service - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the service was provided by transferring the right to possession and effective control. Therefore, for this reason also the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the total tax liability shall reduce substantially. He submits that the appellant have submitted various invoices and work orders which clearly provided that service provided by the appellant is of works contract services. 2.1 He submits that most of the work orders provides for supply of all item with labour services. However, some of the work order provided what is the contractor s scope of supply and what is IIFCO (service recipient) scope of supply. The appellant was under obligation to provide various materials such as Bricks, Sands, Masonry material, GI/MS Clamps, PVC Grip, Wooden Batten, Earth pit material i.e. earth pipe, earth plates, etc. The appellant was provided Cement and Steel from the service recipient on chargeable basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R NO. 40962 / 2023 (Chennai - CESTAT) Shri K. Mayakrishnan v Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Service Tax Appeal No. 41858 of 2014 FINAL ORDER NO. 40964/2023 (Chennai - CESTAT) United Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2011] 30 STT 305 (Bang. - CESTAT) FORWARD RESOURCES PVT LTD v C.C.E. S.T.-SURAT-I - Service Tax Appeal No.10024 of 2020, Final Order No. A/ 10801 /2022 (Ahmd - CESTAT) Dr.Jagjeet Singh Parwana v The Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Chandigarh-II - Service Tax Appeal No. 59189 Of 2013 FINAL ORDER No.60243/2023 (Chandigarh - CESTAT) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P.) Ltd [2007] 2007 taxmann.com 728 (SC) Arkay Logistics Ltd v C.C.E. S.T.-SURA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbent on the Learned Commissioner to call for the invoices if he feels so at the time of adjudication instead of outrightly rejecting the claim of the appellant of Cenvat credit. The appellant have given the calculation of the liability which is as under :- Service Tax liability under Supply of Tangible Goods Services as per SCN dated 15/10/2013. Rs. 94,20,918/- Less : Service tax liability calculated on services provided to Cargil India Private Limited as per original SCN. As per assessee's contention the services are not supply of tangible goods services and not liable to service tax. The assessee has not collected service tax on this value and has also not included this tax in the VCES declaration as the transactions are not liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
