Tribunal grants Stay Petition on Service Tax abatement dispute, citing precedent on material value exclusion.

The Tribunal allowed the Stay Petition unconditionally, finding that the appellant had a prima facie case in their favor regarding the interpretation of Notification No.15/2004-ST for abatement of Service Tax on commercial construction services. The appellant, a firm providing such services, had claimed 67% abatement but was accused of short payment by not including the value of material supplied by clients. The Tribunal referenced precedents supporting the appellant's position that the value of free supplied material should not be included in the taxable value for abatement purposes, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No.15/2004-ST for abatement of Service Tax on commercial construction services.

The judgment pertains to the confirmation of Service Tax and penalties against the appellant for the period 10.09.04 to 31.02.07. The appellant, a firm providing commercial construction services, availed the benefit of Notification No.15/2004-ST, granting 67% abatement of the gross amount charged from clients. The Revenue contended that the appellant wrongly claimed the exemption by not including the value of material supplied by clients, resulting in short payment of Service Tax. Proceedings were initiated, leading to the impugned order by the Commissioner. The appellant cited precedents, including the Tribunal's decision in Cemex Engineers vs. CST Kochin, to support their case that the value of free supplied material should not be included in the taxable value for abatement purposes. Additionally, they referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Era Infra Engineering Ltd. vs. UOI, which concurred with an order from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. UOI, indicating that the value of free supplied material should not be included in the total value as per the Notification in question. The Tribunal found that the appellant had a prima facie case in their favor and allowed the Stay Petition unconditionally.

---