Tribunal remands service tax liability dispute for reevaluation and upholds decision based on lack of evidence.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of service tax liability classification for the appellant's contract with M/s. IOCL, directing reevaluation of service tax liability for specific periods based on appellant's submissions. The inclusion of free supply material in gross value for service tax payment was disputed, with the Tribunal remanding for further consideration. The appellant's failure to provide evidence to counter short payment of service tax resulted in upholding the original authority's decision, leading to the disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellant under the contract with M/s. IOCL for service tax purposes.
2. Calculation of service tax liability for the period 2005-2008 and 2008-2009.
3. Inclusion of the value of free supply material in the gross value for service tax payment.
4. Short payment of service tax amount of &8377; 66,326/-.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was awarded a contract by M/s. IOCL for various works, and the Service Tax Department classified the services under "Commercial & Industrial Construction Service." The appellant argued that the services should be classified under Works Contract Service. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid Sales Tax/VAT on the material supplied for the contract, which should classify the service under works contract service. The matter was remanded to the original authority for verification of the service tax liability for the relevant period.

2. The service tax demand for the period 2005-2008 was contested by the appellant, claiming a lower liability under works contract service. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the service tax liability for the period 01.06.2007 to 29.02.2008 based on the appellant's computation sheet. The matter was referred back to the original authority for a determination of the exact service tax liability.

3. The appellant disputed the inclusion of the value of free supply material in the gross value for service tax payment. The Tribunal referenced precedents stating that free supply items should not be considered for service tax calculation. However, as specific findings were lacking, the matter was remanded to the original authority for consideration of the free supply material and granting the benefit of abatement accordingly.

4. The appellant failed to provide evidence to counter the short payment of service tax amount of &8377; 66,326/-. The Tribunal upheld the original authority's decision on this issue, as no plausible evidence was presented. The appeal was disposed of based on the above analysis.

---