TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority held that as per the express condition in Notification No. 15/2004-ST as well as Notification No. 1/2006-ST during the relevant period, the completion and finishing services in relation to building or civil structure were not eligible for 67% abatement. In the discussion part of the impugned order the adjudicating authority also discussed the applicability of exemption Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 to the appellants which was inter alia subject to the condition that there was documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the goods and material sold by the service provider to the service recipient . The adjudicating authority observed that there was no segregation between the service & the material component either in the appellants invoices or in the works orders. The value of the material used by them was not separately indicated in the invoices and still the service tax was paid on the 33% of invoice value. The adjudicating authority further held that the mention of gross value in their contracts indicated that there was no separate sale of goods and material by the service provider to service recipients. Thus the adjudicating authority held that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Gannon Dunkerley Vs. CCE, Madras [1958] 9 STC 353 (SC) and Daelim Industrial Co. Vs. CCE Vadodara 2003 (155) ELT 457 (Del) as well as some other judgments delivered during the years 2004 & 2005 in this regard. (11) The works contracts became liable to service tax only with effect from 01.06.2007.. (12) There was no suppression of facts on their part. 4. The ld. AR argued that: (1) The appellants deliberately wrongly claimed benefit of Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 and Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 which in respect of the service rendered by them were clearly and unambiguously not applicable. (2) No evidence of value of goods and material sold was submitted to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of Notification No. 12/2003. (3) The Honble Delhi High Court in case of G.D. Builders Vs. Union of India 2013 (32) STR (673) (Del.) has held that service tax can be levied on the service component of any contract involving service and goods and computation of service component is a matter of detail and not a matter relating to validity of imposition of service tax. (4) In its judgment in case Bhayana Builders, it is inter alia stated that benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic interest so to do, hereby exempts so much of the value of all the taxable services, as is equal to the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service, from the service tax leviable thereon under section (66) of the said Act, subject to condition that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials. 2. This notification shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 2003. Thus it is evident that the benefit of this Notification No. (12/2003-ST) can be granted only if there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the goods and material sold by the services provider to the service recipient. The adjudicating authority has held that the appellants had not given such proof and therefore they were not eligible for the benefit of the said Notification No. (12/2003-ST) 9. The appellants have contended that for claiming the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST they are not required to show value of goods and material in the invoices. This contention of the appellants has force as Notification No. 12/2003-ST reproduced above does not prescribe any such condition. It is seen that CESTA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etic Fibres Vs. CC (Import) Mumbai 2012 (278) ELT 0037 (S.C.). Indeed, in the case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Vadodara 2012-TIOL-04-SC-CX, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent of laying down that the provisions of exemption have to be construed strictly and if the exemption is subject to certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with and that the substantial compliance is not enough. Thus, it is simply not acceptable to grant the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST merely on the basis of plausible explanations/approximations. 11. At this juncture it is pertinent to refer to the appellants contention and cited case laws that their contracts being composite contracts covered under the scope of works contracts were not liable to service tax prior to 01.06.2007 when works contract service was made taxable. In this regard, it is to state that this contention is rendered untenable by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. G.D. Builders (Supra) and the case laws cited by the appellants are of the years prior to the year of the said judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In this regard, it is pertinent t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l complexes and construction contracts as specified under Section 65(105) (zzq) and (zzzh) therefore fails. The contention that there was/is no valid levy or the charging section is not applicable to composite contracts under clauses (zzq) and (zzzh) of Section 65(105) stands rejected. (comprises added) But the petitioners have rightly submitted that only the service component can be brought to tax as per provisions of Section 67 which stipulates that value of taxable service is the "gross amount charged. by the service provider for such services provided or to be provided by him and not the value of the goods provided by customers of service provider and the service tax cannot be charged on the value of the goods used in the contract. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in this judgment in case of M/s. G.D. Builders (supra) took due note of the following judgments. 1. All India Fed. Of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India - 2007 (7) STR 625 (S.C.)-Followed Para 29. 2. Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly covered in no way means that the said service was not necessarily taxable during the period prior thereto. The contents of above reproduced para 31 of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of G.D. Builders (supra) has categorically held that: 'as per the provisions of Section 65(105 zzq) and (zzzh), service tax is payable and chargeable on the service element of the contract for construction of industrial and commercial complexes and contract for construction of complexes and in case of composite contract, the service element should be bifurcated and ascertained and then taxed'. The Hon'ble High Court in the same para goes further to add that: the contention that there was/is no valid levy or the charging section is not applicable to composite contracts under clause (zzq) and (zzzh) of section 65(105) stands rejected. 13. Coming back to the applicability of Notification No. 12/2003, as discussed earlier the benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2003-ST cannot be granted merely on the basis of ov....