TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e services classified by the department as management, maintenance or repair services, it was correctly classified as works contract services for the reason that the contract is provided along with material and the appellant had paid works contract tax. Therefore, it fulfills the criteria for classifying the services as works contract service. He submits that since the demand was raised on the management, maintenance or repair services, the demand is not sustainable. Even it is assumed that the demand should have been made under works contract service, the same was not taxable before 01/06/2007 as the works contract service was introduced from the said date. This has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L& T Ltd - 2015 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. - 2006 (002) STR 0161 (SC). He further submits in respect of non-commercial Government building retrospective amendment was brought by Finance Act, 2012 under Section 98 of the Finance Act, 2012, according to which the construction service related to Government building is exempted, the same was clarified by Circular No.80/10/2004-ST dated 17/09/2004. He further submits that in the present case, the entire contract is related to the building, which is owned by the railways. The exemption is clearly applicable. He also submits that as regards the replacement for NS quarters. Since the quarters are used for workers/employees of Central Railways, it is not for commercial use but for personal use, which was ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of issuance of consignment note, demand of GTA is not sustainable. He alternatively submits that in the facts of the present case the major portion of the transportation is related to the freight expenses, which is less than Rs. 750/- per trip, which is exempted by Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004. He referred to the calculation of freight above Rs. 750/- which is placed at page 74 of appeal memorandum. According to which the service tax liability comes to Rs. 72,740/-. As regards the demand under construction service for the period 2005-06 and 2006-07, he submits that the demand was raised on the differential value shown in P&L account and ST-3 return. In this regard he referred to the reconciliation statement provided in page 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with railways and the entire work under contract was provided along with goods. The work contract tax was also deducted by the railways from the contract value and the appellants have also paid the works contract tax, in such a situation, service is prima facie covered under works contract service, which became taxable with effect from 01/06/2007 and prior to that it was not taxable, in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). However, the fact whether the contract is provided along with goods and works contract tax deducted by the service recipient/paid by the appellants and the decision of the Larsen & Troubro has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the matter n....