TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the revenue authorities and were discharging service tax under the category of 'works contract services'; they filed refund claim for an amount of Rs. 73,00,138/- on the ground that during the period 17.3.2011 to 28.12.2011 they have wrongly paid the tax as they had executed works contract, which were composite contracts involving both supply of material and the services. It is the case of the assessee before the lower authorities that while paying the service tax, they are eligible for deduction on the value of materials which was not claimed by oversight and admissible as per notification 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. Show cause notice was issued by the lower authorities seeking response from the respondent as to why the refund claim s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06-ST. He would submit that these findings of the first appellate authority are erroneous inasmuch, the respondent has not claimed the benefit of notification also never claimed that the services rendered by them would fall under 'erection, commissioning and maintenance services'. He would assail the order on second point stating that CA certificate which was produced is not categorically stating that the respondent has not received the amount from their customers but is only certifying in a broad way that all the expenses were debited and the receivable amounts were credited which is not giving a clear picture of what exactly happened. It is his further submission that the contracts entered by the appellant are for a lump sum contract and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ims. He would explain this point to the bench stating that as per notification 01/2006-ST, assessee is eligible to claim the abatement/ deduction of 67% of the amount of contract as cost of materials, on producing invoices etc., and has to discharge service tax liability on the 33% of the amount. He would submit that the respondent/ assessee had from the day one, claimed the deduction of an amount which is equivalent to 55% of the contract value based upon the actual consumption of the material. On the question of documents not being provided, he would submit that the adjudicating authority himself has rejected refund claims of 6/8 bills, on the ground that they are hit by limitation which would indicate that the respondent had provided all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied by the CA. In our view, benefit of notification 12/2003-ST cannot be denied to the respondent. Further, it has to be seen that even for the works contract services, Service Tax (Determination of value) Rules, 2006 provide for reduction of the cost of the materials/property transferred in execution of works contract. The Chartered Accountant's certificate which was produced by the respondent before the lower authorities, as also various bills, would indicate that the claim of the respondent as to there being 55% of the value of the works contract executed by them, is not being disputed. The first appellate authority has categorically recorded that respondent was able to convince him about the claim based upon documents which were in supp....