9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore all their contracts were in the nature of works contracts. This fact was also noted in the Tribunal's order in the first round of litigation. The impugned order also does not dispute this fact. It is for this reason, that in the impugned order the Commissioner set aside the demand for the period prior to 1st June, 2007 following the judgement of the Supreme Court in Larsen Toubro Ltd. [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT ] Commissioner confirmed the demand for the period after 1st June, 2007 under the head works contract service . There was no proposal to demand tax in the SCN under this head, nor has the appellant been given an opportunity to defend itself against tax liability under this head. Therefore, as the impugned order clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax confirmed and imposed penalties on the appellant. 4. This order of the Commissioner was assailed by the appellant by filing Service Tax Appeal No. 3974 of 2012 before this Tribunal. By final order dated 13 September 2017, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication with the following directions : It is the submission of the learned counsel that even though it is works contract, no benefit of abatement under notification number 15/2004 (ST) dated 10.9.2004 was provided to the noticee. Similarly, the benefit of ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Kerala versus Larsen and Toubro Ltd, 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC), was not provided to the noticee-appellant. In other words, he subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner referred to Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 in paragraph 5.13.1 of the order and concluded in paragraph 5.13.2 that as per the Rule only service portion of the contract is taxable and the said rule provides a mechanism to determine the same. The rule stipulates the value of works contract service shall be equivalent to the gross amount charged for the contract less the value of transfer of property in goods involved in execution of the said works contract. However, the Commissioner did not comply with this provision and did not exclude the value of the property used on the ground that the appellant had failed to present facts and figures along with document evidence to claim the benefit of the material. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order the Commissioner set aside the demand for the period prior to 1st June, 2007 following the judgement of the Supreme Court in Larsen Toubro Ltd. However, the Commissioner confirmed the demand for the period after 1st June, 2007 under the head works contract service‟. There was no proposal to demand tax in the SCN under this head, nor has the appellant been given an opportunity to defend itself against tax liability under this head. Therefore, as the impugned order clearly travelled beyond the SCN it needs to be set aside on this ground alone. It is a well-settled legal position that any order which travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice cannot be sustained. 12. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
