9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvances received during the period in question at the time of settling the final bills, which the learned Commissioner has recorded in the impugned order. As far as the remaining demand of Rs.58,34,404/- is concerned, it is found that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [ 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT] . Also, it is found that the appellant had undisputedly rendered Works Contract Service during the relevant period as has been repeatedly mentioned in the reply to the show-cause notice and referred to in the impugned order. Further, it is found that this Tribunal in the appellant s own case, for subsequent period 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax on advances received and Rs.58,34,404/- relates to non-payment of service tax on cost of materials supplied free by the customers and used in the provision of taxable service. He submits that during the relevant period, the appellant had rendered services which included both material and services; therefore the service was in the nature of works contract and not leviable to service tax. Also, on the issue of inclusion of value of materials in the cost of taxable value, he submits that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CST, Delhi Ors Vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. Ors. [2018(10) GSTL 118 (SC)]. Further he submits that however, the allegation against nonpayment of service tax on advances rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruction of complex services , during the period in question i.e. 16.06.2005 to 31.03.2006. The appellant explained that they have paid the service tax on the advances received during the period in question at the time of settling the final bills, which the learned Commissioner has recorded in the impugned order. As far as the remaining demand of Rs.58,34,404/- is concerned, we find that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CST, Delhi Ors Vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. Ors. (supra). Also, we find that the appellant had undisputedly rendered Works Contract Service during the relevant period as has been repeatedly mentioned in the reply to the show-cause notice and referred to in the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
