TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve shoe-cause notice issued by the Additional Director-General, O/o Director-General of Intelligence, Chennai, dated 29^th February 2008 and by Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem on 30^th April 2009. The former is for the period from 10^th September 2004 to 30^th September 2007 demanding service tax of Rs. 1,22,45,679/- along with cess thereon and the adjudication authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,20,49,527/-. In the second matter, the demand was for Rs. 56,17,843/-, with cess thereon, against which the adjudicating authority confirmed an amount of Rs. 49,99,860/- with Cess thereon. 2. The demands in both show-cause notices to rendering of 'commercial or industrial construction service' leviable to tax under section 65(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing provider of ' contract service' were not liable to tax as provider 01 'commercial or industrial construction service'. This plea was not accepted by the adjudicating authority who proceeded to confirm the demand. Their further contention is that even though they are liable to tax with effect from 1^st June 2007 the show-cause notice had not invoked the taxable entry rendering the determination of tax liability to be contrary to the provisions of section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel that further arguments should be contingent upon a decision on these two issues. 5. Learned Authorised Representative was of the opinion that the facts of the appellant are distinguishable the facts rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within the narrow compass of taxability as 'works contract service'. We note the contention of Learned Counsel that the adjudicating authority had perused the contracts on which the demand raised in the show-cause notice and rendered a clear finding, including on the allegation of abatement availed in notification no 15/2004-ST dated 10^th September 2004 and notification no 01/2006 dated 1^st March 2006; the allowance of abatement is a clear demonstration of ascertainment that supply of goods did form a part of the contract. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the said contracts in dispute to be composite contracts for supply of both goods and services. 8. We note that the findings of the adjudicating authority do acce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove the non-service elements from the composite works contracts has been made by any of the aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of properly in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract. ' 10. In view of this specific decision and the admitted claim of the appellant that they are not providers of 'commercial or industrial construction service' but of 'works contract service', no tax is liable on construction contracts executed prior to 1^st June 2007. 11. Insofar as demand for subsequent period till 30^th September 2008 is concerned, it is see....