Appellant cleared of misclassification charge with no revenue impact, client-supplied materials excluded from service tax.

The appellant was accused of misclassifying their service but was found to have no revenue implications due to available abatements. The charge of not including the value of materials supplied by clients in the gross value of the service was dismissed based on established legal principles. The case was remanded for re-quantification of service tax, if any, after allowing abatements. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of service classification.
2. Inclusion of the value of materials supplied by clients in the gross value for service tax payment.

Summary:

Mis-declaration of Service Classification:
The appellant was accused of mis-declaring their service under "Construction Service" instead of "Erection, Installation and Commissioning." However, it was noted that the abatement of 67% is available for both categories, rendering the misclassification without revenue implications. The appellant had been paying service tax under a bona fide belief that the abatement notifications applied to them, negating any suppression of facts. Thus, the demand for the extended period was barred by limitation, supported by precedents such as Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Commr. of S.T., Ahmedabad and Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.

Inclusion of Value of Materials Supplied by Clients:
The main charge was that the appellant did not include the value of materials supplied by their clients in the gross value of the service, violating the conditions of exemption notifications (Nos. 19/2003-ST, 15/2004-ST, and 1/2006-ST). However, this issue was deemed no longer res-integra. Citing the judgment in Bhayana Builders (P) Limited, it was established that for availing abatement under these notifications, the value of materials provided by the service recipient should not be included in the gross value for service tax purposes. The Tribunal upheld this position, supported by the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that only the value charged by the service provider to the service recipient is considered the gross value under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the department's charge failed based on the settled legal position that the value of materials supplied by the service recipient cannot be included in the gross value of the service. The misclassification of service did not have revenue implications due to the available abatements. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-quantify the service tax, if any, after allowing the abatement for services of Erection, Commissioning, or Installation. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in these terms.

---