2019 (2) TMI 1308 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Works Contract service – construction services – Revenue has challenged the portion of the adjudicating order in which substantial portion of demand proposed in the show cause notice has been dropped – time limitation – Held that:- For the period prior to 01/07/2012, the classification of service was required to be done and activities carried out are to be classified under Works Contract Service. The show cause notice issued on 23/10/2013 has proposed the demand of service tax under the categories of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection and Commissioning Service – As such since the classification has been held to be under WCS, there is no infirmity in the findings of the adjudicating authority to the effect that the demand prior 01/07/2012 is liable to be set aside.
–
Demand for the period commencing 01/07/2012 – Held that:- After the amendment to the Finance Act, 1994, there is no need for classification of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan 1. These two appeals are against the order-in-original number 32/2015 dated 25/08/2015. M/s Lattice Interiors (M/s Lattice) were registered with Service Tax Department w.e.f. 2/05/2008 for providing commercial or industrial construction service. The Department received intelligence that M/s Lattice was not discharging service tax in full for these activities carried out by them. Investigation was undertaken into the activities in pursuance of the said intelligence. The various summons issued by the departmental authorities for collection of information was not replied to by M/s Lattice. The departmental authorities further obtained copies of balance sheets for the years 2008-09 to 2011-12 from the Income Tax Department. M/s Lattice, vide their letter dated 12/08/2013, submitted the details of year wise contracts along with gross receipts. After completing the investigation show cause notice dated 23/10/2013 was issued to M/s Lattice by the department proposin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed Service Tax demand on services provided to Prasar Bharti, New Delhi Municipal Corporation, NTPC, Indian Railways, Power Machines (India) Ltd, NBCC Ltd which were not meant for commercial use. In respect of certain construction undertaken by way of residential units meant for use of the employees, also the demand for service tax was dropped. However, he held that the services rendered to Joint Stock Company, FEAT as well as Indian Oil Corporation were liable to service tax. 4. The adjudicating authority further observed that the nature of the various contracts executed by the appellant were in the nature of Works Contract Services. He took the view that for the period prior to 01/07/2012 such services will be classifiable under Works Contract Service. The demand for service tax made in the show cause notice was proposed under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection and Commissioning Service. Hence he held that the demand for service tax prior
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
period beyond five years. He referred to the provisions of the Section 73 of the Act and submitted that the relevant date is to be considered as the last day on which ST-3 Returns was required to be filed i.e. for the period from 01/04/2008 to 30/09/2008, the last date was 25/10/2008. Considering this as the relevant date, he submitted that the show cause notice dated 23/10/2013 covers the period of demand right from 01/04/2008. b. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has wrongly taken the view in respect of the construction work carried out by M/s Lattice for M/s NBCC Ltd. He submitted that NBCC will not get the benefit of the exemption granted by the Notification Number 25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 which listed out various persons which will not be liable for payment of service tax after the introduction of the negative list regime w.e.f. 1/7/2012 (entry no. 12a). c. The Ld. DR referred to the service provided to M/s Jindal Martech for NTPC Solapur for the period 2010-2011 an
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
0/2013; to this effect the Affidavit has already been submitted before the adjudicating authority. If 27/10/13 is considered as the date of service of notice, the five year period cannot extend earlier than 1st October, 2008. ii. He rebutted the view taken by the Revenue that adjudicating authority has not passed a speaking order. He referred to the findings of the adjudicating authority and he pointed out that the adjudicating authority has examined all the contracts executed by the service provider, copies of which have been made available to him. On the basis of such scrutiny the adjudicating authority has taken the view that the activities carried out were in the form of Works Contract Service. He referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro reported at 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) decided on 20/08/2015 and submitted that the Apex Court has held that in case of contracts which are composit in nature involving supply of goods and providing servi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
as well as to Joint Stock Company FEAT as follows:- Particulars Taxable value Rs. Rate Service Tax liability Rs. Taxable category Indian Oil Corporation 1,85,318 12.36% 22,905 Not specified Joint Stock Co. FEAT 29,71,710 12.36% 3,67,303 Total 3157028 3,90,208 iv. He further submitted that the demand in respect of m/s Indian Oil Corporation is pertaining to the period 2008-09 and as such not liable to be paid in view of the Larsen & Toubro case. v. In respect of the demand of ₹ 3,67,303/- provided to Joint Stock Company FEAT, he submitted that such activity was also in the nature of Works Contract Service. He further argued that the service tax liability has already been discharged by the appellant under the Works Contract Service after availing the benefit of abatement under notification number 24/2012 dated 26/2012. The adjudicating authority has failed to notice the fact that the service tax as above has already been discharged. vi. Finally the Ld. CA submitted that the d
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e of Larsen & Toubro (Supra). The Apex Court has categorically held that composite contracts which involve supply of goods as well as providing service will be liable for payment of service tax only under the category of Works Contract Service. For the period prior to 01/07/2012, the classification of service was required to be done and activities carried out are to be classified under Works Contract Service. The show cause notice issued on 23/10/2013 has proposed the demand of service tax under the categories of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as well as Erection and Commissioning Service. As such since the classification has been held to be under WCS, we have find no infirmity in the findings of the adjudicating authority to the effect that the demand prior 01/07/2012 is liable to be set aside. Consequently we find no reason to discuss the ground raised by the Revenue in their grounds of their appeal to the effect that the entire demand raised in the show cause noti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =