TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2004-ST dated 10.09.2004, as amended, applicable to industrial or commercial service and notification no.18/2005-ST dated 7.6.2005 applicable to construction of complex service and accordingly were paying service tax after availing 67% abatement from the gross amount charged. However, it was subsequently found that they were also receiving cement and steel free of cost from some of their customers viz. M/s. Laconet Hemant India Ltd., Katara Estates Ltd., M/s. Golcha Buildtech (p) Ltd., M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. and M/s. Ashok Leyland but the value of free supply material was not included in the gross amount charged. It was also found that in respect of a building constructed for M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., though it was used for commercial purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....together with the interest voluntarily paid during investigation was appropriated and besides this, while penalty of Rs. 50,50,995/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 78, penalty of Rs. 200/- per day was imposed under Section 76. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 1.3 Since one of the main issue is involved in this case in respect of which service tax involved is Rs. 31,58,281/-, pertained to the dispute as to whether the value of free supply material supplied by the customers is to be included in the gross amount for the purpose of notification no.15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 and notification no.18/2005-St dated 7.6.2005 and since on this issue, there were conflicting judgments, a larger bench wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....industrial building as this building was not meant for commercial or business activity, that as regards the service tax demand in respect of the construction for M/s.Ashok Leyland, this building at the time of construction was not meant to be used for commercial purposes and just because subsequent to the construction on account of charge of use permitted, the building was used for commercial purposes, service tax cannot be demanded, that the service tax demand against M/s.Ashol Leyland Ltd. also includes the service tax demand on account of free supply material supplied by M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., which is already included in the amount of Rs. 31,58,281/- and that in view of the above, while the service tax demand of Rs. 10,65,742/- in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant is included in the amount of Rs. 31,38,281/-, this point has to be examined by the adjudicating authority for which the same would have to be remanded. 8. As regards the service tax demand of Rs. 10,65,742/- in respect of the construction of Tanzania High Commission, we are of the view that building to be used by the Tanzania High Commission is not covered by the definition of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' as given in Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994, as according to this provision, 'commercial or industrial construction' means - (a) 'construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof; which is - (i) used, or to be used, primarily for; or (ii) occupied, or to be oc....