Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for service tax on commercial and industrial construction service where the invoice did not separately show service tax, the amount should first be treated as cum-tax and then abatement applied, or whether abatement should be applied first and the balance treated as cum-tax value.
Analysis: The dispute concerned the method of arriving at the assessable value for service tax. The amount was payable only on the abated value of 33% of the billed amount, and splitting that abated portion between value and tax was considered the proper approach. Applying abatement after treating the entire project value as cum-tax was found to be less appropriate. The method adopted by the appellant was held to be consistent with the way tax is computed on the abated value.
Conclusion: The appellant's method was accepted for the purpose of pre-deposit, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was granted.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed at the interim stage by granting relief against pre-deposit and recovery pending disposal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where service tax is payable on an abated portion of the billed amount, the tax computation should proceed on the abated value rather than by first treating the entire amount as cum-tax and then applying abatement.