Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the services rendered under a composite contract were liable to service tax for the period prior to 01.06.2007 and whether the demand for the period thereafter could be sustained when raised under the wrong head.
Analysis: The work was found to be a composite contract involving both service and material. In the light of the principle that works contract services became taxable only from 01.06.2007, the pre-01.06.2007 demand could not stand. For the period after 01.06.2007, the demand was held unsustainable because the services were correctly classifiable as works contract services and the levy had been raised under an incorrect head. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had already paid service tax on the taxable portion after availing abatement and that the factual matrix was covered by the earlier decision in the appellant's own matter.
Conclusion: The demand for both the pre-01.06.2007 and post-01.06.2007 periods was held unsustainable, and relief was granted to the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full and the service tax demand did not survive.
Ratio Decidendi: A composite works contract involving supply of material is not exigible to service tax for the period before the levy of works contract service, and a demand for the later period cannot be sustained if it is raised under an incorrect taxable head.