https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328095 Abatement under Notification No. 18/2005-ST and Notification No. 1/2006-ST could not be denied merely because the service recipient supplied goods free of cost, since such supplies were not required to be included in the assessable value; the benefit could be withdrawn only if cenvat credit on capital goods had actually been taken for the projects in dispute, which was not shown, so the denial-based demand failed. By contrast, the works contract composition scheme could not be applied from 01.06.2007 to projects already ongoing before that date, so that liability survived, but the matter was remanded for fresh quantification and reconsideration of interest and penalty. en-us Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328095 Abatement under Notification No. 18/2005-ST and Notification No. 1/2006-ST could not be denied merely because the service recipient supplied goods free of cost, since such supplies were not required to be included in the assessable value; the benefit could be withdrawn only if cenvat credit on capital goods had actually been taken for the projects in dispute, which was not shown, so the denial-based demand failed. By contrast, the works contract composition scheme could not be applied from 01.06.2007 to projects already ongoing before that date, so that liability survived, but the matter was remanded for fresh quantification and reconsideration of interest and penalty. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328095