Tribunal grants appeal, allows Composition Scheme for service tax, sets specific directions

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case with specific directions. The appellants were permitted to pay service tax under the Composition Scheme, with the demand limited to the normal period. Service tax already paid was to be adjusted towards their liability under the Composition Scheme, with any remaining amount to be paid by the appellants. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to verify the appellants' claims regarding the payment of duty at the compounded rate.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of composite contracts under Works Contract Service.
2. Eligibility to opt for Composition Scheme under Works Contract Rules.
3. Demand of service tax on client’s disputed amounts and mobilization advances.
4. Service tax liability as a sub-contractor.
5. Invocation of extended period for demand.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Composite Contracts under Works Contract Service:
The appellants, engaged in the construction of residential complexes, sought to classify their composite contracts under the Works Contract Service with effect from 01.06.2007, as per Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. They argued that the construction of residential complexes being a works contract was liable to service tax only from 01.06.2007, as held by the Supreme Court in the Larsen & Toubro Limited case. The Department contended that the appellants could not reclassify their services from Commercial or Industrial Construction Service to Works Contract Service. However, the Tribunal found that the services rendered by the appellants were indeed composite services and thus liable to service tax only from 01.06.2007, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment.

2. Eligibility to Opt for Composition Scheme under Works Contract Rules:
The appellants opted for the Composition Scheme under Rule 3(3) of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007, before paying service tax. The Department denied this option, citing Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST, which stated that service providers who paid service tax before 01.06.2007 could not change the classification of their services. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in L&T, held that the appellants were eligible to opt for the Composition Scheme since composite contracts were not taxable before 01.06.2007. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants had informed the Department of their intention to opt for the Composition Scheme on 14.06.2007.

3. Demand of Service Tax on Client’s Disputed Amounts and Mobilization Advances:
The Department demanded service tax on client’s disputed amounts and mobilization advances received before and after 01.06.2007. The Tribunal held that advances received before 01.06.2007 were not liable to service tax, and those received after were taxable under the Works Contract Service. The appellants had paid a significant portion of the tax on advances, and the remaining amount was confirmed due to the denial of the Composition Scheme. The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to verify the appellants' claim of having paid the tax at the compounded rate.

4. Service Tax Liability as a Sub-Contractor:
The Department demanded service tax for services provided by the appellants as a sub-contractor during April 2006 to March 2007. The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered before 01.06.2007, they were not liable to service tax as per the L&T judgment. The Tribunal also noted that the principal contractor had clarified that they had paid the entire service tax for the period in question.

5. Invocation of Extended Period for Demand:
The show cause notice issued on 20.04.2010 invoked the extended period for recovery of service tax. The Tribunal found that the appellants had been regular service tax payers and had informed the Department of their option to switch to the Composition Scheme. Given that the issue involved interpretation of law and no mala fides could be imputed to the appellants, the Tribunal held that the extended period could not be invoked. The demand for the extended period was thus set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand with specific directions. The appellants were allowed to pay service tax under the Composition Scheme, and the demand was limited to the normal period. The service tax already paid by the appellants was to be adjusted towards their liability under the Composition Scheme, with any difference to be paid by the appellants. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to verify the appellants' claims regarding the payment of duty at the compounded rate.

---