Works contract valuation and exemption issues remanded for factual verification, with mobilisation advance and tax rate in dispute.

Mobilisation advance was treated as includible in the taxable value of works contracts, but the exact factual position on whether it had already been included and whether tax had been paid on the full value required verification, so the matter was remanded for reconsideration of valuation and the correct service tax rate. For contracts not covered by the works contract composition scheme, assessment had to proceed under the charging provision, while the claim of retrospective exemption for road construction was left for examination on remand. Further pre-deposit was waived because substantial pre-deposit had already been made.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dispute regarding inclusion of mobilisation advance in the value of works contracts and the applicable rate of service tax required remand for factual verification; (ii) Whether the contracts not covered by the works contract composition scheme were to be assessed under the charging provision and whether the claim of exemption for road construction required examination.

Issue (i): Whether the dispute regarding inclusion of mobilisation advance in the value of works contracts and the applicable rate of service tax required remand for factual verification.

Analysis: The appellant had already made substantial pre-deposit, which was treated as sufficient for waiver of further pre-deposit. On the disputed valuation issue, the record disclosed a contradictory factual stand on whether the mobilisation advance had been included in the works contract value and whether service tax had been paid on the entire value. The legal position that such advance is includible in the taxable value was not disputed, but the exact factual position required verification by the original adjudicating authority. The grievance that tax had been demanded at 10% instead of the applicable 4% rate also required consideration at that stage.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of facts and for examination of the correct rate of tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the contracts not covered by the works contract composition scheme were to be assessed under the charging provision and whether the claim of exemption for road construction required examination.

Analysis: In respect of the two contracts for which the composition scheme had not been opted, the applicable charging provision was held to govern their assessment. The appellant did not dispute that legal position. The claim that one of the contracts related to road construction, and therefore attracted retrospective exemption, was left to be examined by the lower authority on remand.

Conclusion: The contracts were to be assessed under the charging provision, and the claim for exemption on road construction was to be examined by the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by sustaining the legal position on assessment while sending the factual and exemption-related matters back for reconsideration, with waiver of further pre-deposit granted.

---