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>Service tax appeal allowed for Works Contract Service with 70% abatement under Rule 2A of Valuation Rules</h1> <h3>M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Indore</h3> M/s. Kores (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Indore - TMI Issues involved:1. Alleged short payment of service tax for the financial year 2016-17.2. Discrepancy between the amount shown in balance sheet and ST-3 returns.3. Eligibility for abatement on the quantum of service tax under Rule 2A of Valuation Rules, 2006.4. Failure to establish the services as works contract under repair and maintenance services.5. Dispute regarding the nature of services provided and the applicability of Rule 2A of Valuation Rules.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal was filed to challenge the Order-in-Appeal alleging short payment of service tax for the financial year 2016-17. The department observed a difference in assessable income between ST-3 returns and the balance sheet, leading to a demand for recovery of service tax. The order was initially confirmed but later dismissed in the appeal.2. The discrepancy between the amount shown in the balance sheet and ST-3 returns was highlighted. The appellant contended that they had rendered works contract services for which service tax had been correctly paid. The appellant argued that the demand was erroneous as service tax had been paid on 70% of the works contract service provided to M/s. MECL.3. The eligibility for abatement on the quantum of service tax under Rule 2A of Valuation Rules was a key issue. The appellant provided documents supporting their claim, including comprehensive annual maintenance contracts and sample invoices. The appellant argued that the service tax had been correctly paid based on the works contract service provided.4. The failure to establish the services as works contract under repair and maintenance services was disputed. The appellant provided evidence showing that the maintenance services included the supply of spare parts, making it a works contract service. The Commissioner's findings were challenged as not supported by the documentary evidence provided.5. The dispute regarding the nature of services provided and the applicability of Rule 2A of Valuation Rules was crucial. The appellant's contention that the services provided were works contract services was supported by the agreement and invoices, indicating the supply of goods along with maintenance services. The order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the evidence presented.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
