Composite contracts and service tax: separately identified goods value was excludible, and the extended limitation period was unavailable in a bona fide dispute.

Where a composite contract separately identifies the supply of goods and the provision of services, and the records show VAT/CST payment on the goods, the goods component is excludible from the taxable service value under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. The exemption applies on documentary proof of sale and is not denied merely because the recipient may have taken credit. On limitation, a service tax demand on a sub-contractor could not attract the extended period where the levy was under genuine legal dispute, supported by conflicting circulars and judicial views, and there was no suppression, fraud, misstatement or wilful evasion. The demand was therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of goods and materials sold in the composite contracts was excludible from the taxable value under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. when the contracts, invoices and books separately disclosed the supply and service portions and VAT/CST had been paid on the goods; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service tax demand raised on a sub-contractor in the prevailing disputed legal position.

Issue (i): Whether the value of goods and materials sold in the composite contracts was excludible from the taxable value under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. when the contracts, invoices and books separately disclosed the supply and service portions and VAT/CST had been paid on the goods.

Analysis: The contracts and supporting records showed a clear bifurcation between the value of goods/materials and the value of services. The taxable service portion had been subjected to service tax, while the supply portion had suffered VAT/CST. Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. exempts the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider, subject to documentary proof of such sale. The condition in the notification was directed to the service provider's entitlement and did not warrant denial of the exemption merely because the recipient might have taken credit. On those facts, the value attributable to goods could not be added to the taxable service value.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the goods/materials value was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service tax demand raised on a sub-contractor in the prevailing disputed legal position.

Analysis: The levy on sub-contractors had been the subject of conflicting circulars and contrary judicial views, and the legal position was settled only later by the Larger Bench. In that backdrop, the appellant's conduct could not be treated as suppression, fraud, misstatement or wilful evasion. The disputed nature of the levy and the prevailing understanding that the main contractor had discharged tax on the full value negated the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period. Since the notice was issued beyond the normal period, the demand was time-barred.

Conclusion: The extended period was held to be not invokable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand did not survive both on the taxable-value issue relating to goods supply and on limitation, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the supply portion of a composite contract is separately established by contract and records and VAT/CST has been paid, its value is not includible in the taxable service value under the exemption notification; and where the levy itself was under bona fide dispute with conflicting circulars and decisions, the extended period cannot be invoked absent suppression or fraud.

---