Service tax valuation excludes VAT-paid materials in tyre retreading, while extended limitation survives for suppression and non-registration.

The value of materials consumed in tyre retreading services could not be included in the taxable service value where VAT had already been discharged, since VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive. On that basis, the valuation demand was set aside and the matter remanded only to verify whether exclusion of materials brought the appellant within the threshold exemption. The extended period of limitation remained invocable because the appellant had not obtained service tax or central excise registration and the activity surfaced only on departmental action; the pleaded circular did not displace suppression on these facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of materials consumed in rendering tyre retreading services could be excluded from the taxable value and, on such exclusion, whether the appellant could claim threshold exemption. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether the value of materials consumed in rendering tyre retreading services could be excluded from the taxable value and, on such exclusion, whether the appellant could claim threshold exemption.

Analysis: The demand had been computed by including the value of materials in the taxable value. Following the Supreme Court decision relied upon in the order, the value of materials consumed for providing the service could not be included in the taxable value where VAT had been discharged. Since VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive, tax could not be levied again on amounts that had already suffered VAT. The question whether exclusion of materials would bring the appellant within the threshold limit required factual verification.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the value of materials in the taxable value was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to verify whether the appellant fell within the threshold exemption.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellant had not obtained service tax or central excise registration, and the activity came to light only upon departmental action. The Board circular relied upon did not establish any genuine doubt negating taxability for the relevant period. On those facts, suppression could not be denied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held invocable, and the appellant's challenge on limitation failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part on valuation and was remanded for limited verification of threshold exemption, while the challenge to invocation of the extended period was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: The value of materials consumed in providing a service cannot be added to the taxable value where such materials have already suffered VAT, but invocation of the extended period is sustained where suppression is found from non-registration and non-payment of tax.

---