TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT AHMEDABAD Remands Service Tax Case for Re-Examination</h1> <h3>Smita Engineers Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Ahmedabad-III</h3> Smita Engineers Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Ahmedabad-III - TMI Issues:1. Appellant providing services under the wrong category.2. Short payment of service tax by the Appellant.3. Discrepancy in the value of pipes supplied by the recipient of service.4. Adjudicating authority's decision on limitation and demand confirmation.5. Non-inclusion of material cost in the gross value of services provided.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeals were against the Order-In-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad, where the Appellant's service was categorized incorrectly under erection, commissioning, and installation services instead of commercial and industrial construction services. The Appellant had short paid service tax, leading to a demand notice for the differential gross value. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a partial demand, dropping the rest as time-barred. The appeals arose from this order.2. The Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice for including the value of pipes supplied by the service recipient in the taxable value, demanding service tax. The lower authority confirmed part of the demand but dropped the rest due to limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the service tax demand based on the value of pipes supplied, which was not challenged by the Appellant.3. The first issue was the non-inclusion of the cost of material received from service receivers in the gross value of services provided. The Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Delhi I favored the assessee on this issue, rendering the service tax demand unsustainable.4. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not address whether the value of pipes supplied by the recipient should be included in the calculation of service tax. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Authority for a detailed re-examination, emphasizing the need to consider the appellant's claim on limitation and provide a fair hearing before passing a new order.5. The judgment was pronounced on 21.11.2022 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, highlighting the need for a fresh examination of the issues related to the value of pipes supplied by the service recipient and the inclusion of material costs in the gross value of services provided.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
