M\/s Grid Power Systems Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Allahabad And Vice-Versa
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 678 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 3-5-2018
Appeal No. ST\/70493 & 70561\/2017-CU[DB] – Final Order Nos. 70831-70832\/2018
Service Tax
Hon'ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical)
\nShri Abhinav Kalra (CA) for Assessee
\nShri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr.) AR for Revenue
\nORDER
\nPer : Anil Choudhary
\nThese cross appeals arise from impugned Order-in-Original No. ALD\/EXCUS\/000\/(ST-191\/2015) 15 of 2017 dated 31 March, 2007, whereby the learned Commissioner have pursuant to show cause notice proposing to demand Service Tax of Rs. 5,82,46,674\/- have confirmed demand of Rs. 2,00,02,630\/- under the category 'works contract' alongwith appropriation of Rs. 1,41,49,548\/- which was deposited prior to the issue of SCN and as per the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant-assesse, and <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the learned Commissioner have assessed the appellant-assessed at a reduced amount, as noticed herein above in the following manner: – = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n taking only 30% rebate the service tax liability comes to Rs. 1,40,36,953\/- whereas the appellant have admitted service tax liability as per their ST-3 returns of Rs. 1,41,49,548\/- which includes the liability for other services of small nature like rent-a-cab and manpower supply. Thus there is no discrepancy and\/or case of service tax short paid and\/or not paid, made out against the appellant. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the execution of the works contract shall determine the service tax payable in the following manner -(A) In case of works contract entered into for execution of original works, service tax shall be payable on 40% of the total amount charged for the works contract. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Grid Power Systems Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Allahabad And Vice-VersaService Tax2018 (5) TMI 678 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 3-5-2018Appeal No. ST\/70493 & 70561\/2017-CU[DB] – Final Order Nos. 70831-70832\/2018Service TaxHon'ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Abhinav Kalra (CA) … Continue reading “M\/s Grid Power Systems Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Allahabad And Vice-Versa”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n S. No.
\n Particulars (2)
\n Gross Amount (3)
\n Abatement (4)
\n Net Amount Taxable (5)
\n Rate of Tax (6)
\n Service Tax (7)
\n 1.
\n Works Contract for Purvanchal Nigal Ltd. & UP Power Corporation Ltd.
\n 123,597,380
\n –
\n 123,597,380
\n 12.36%
\n 15,276,636
\n 2.
\n Works Contract for repair and maintenance of transformers
\n 37,289,312
\n –
\n 37,289,312
\n 12.36%
\n 4,608,959
\n 3.
\n Rent-a-cab
\n1,258,800
\n755,280
\n503,520
\n 12.36%
\n62,235
\n 4.
\n Manpower Supply
\n1,773,500
\n1,330,125
\n443,375
\n 12.36%
\n54,801
\n
\n TOTAL
\n160,886,692
\n–
\n160,886,692
\n
\n20,002,631
\n
\n3. The learned counsel for appellant-assessee further states that the learned Commissioner have erred in not allowing any abatement and demanding the service tax on <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. The learned AR for Revenue relies on the impugned order and further arguing on appeal by Revenue being ST\/70561\/2017, states that dropping of demand of service tax raised on the activity undertaken by the assessee and the service provided by them prior to 01 July, 2012 to Purvanchal Nigam Ltd and UP Power Corporation Ltd., in light of Notification No. 11\/2010-ST dated 27.05.2010 and the conditions mentioned at 1, 2, 3, 4 & % of Circular No. 123\/5\/2010 – TRU dated 24 May, 2010, issued under<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n9. Accordingly, we find that there is failure on the part of learned Commissioner to allow the admissible abatement under the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Amendment Rules, 2012, read with the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. We further find that from the workings given by the counsel for the appellant-assessee even by allowing 30% abatement the service tax payable comes to almost equal to the admitted tax already paid and properly declared in their returns filed with the Department. In this view of the matter, we find that the show cause notice is not maintainable and misconceived. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant-assessee and dismiss the appeal filed<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n