TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocate for the Appellant Dr. Radhe Tallo, Authorised Representative for the Respondent JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA: Service Tax Appeal No.53250 of 2015 has been filed by the assessee to assail the order dated 29 May, 2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner, Service Tax Delhi-III the Principal Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs. 10,00,79,297/- with penalty and interest pursuant to the Show cause notice dated 13 October, 2011 issued for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11. 2. Service Tax Appeal No.53251 of 2015 has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29 May, 2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs. 3,54,45,136/- pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23 October, 2012 for the period 2011-12. 3. Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hird appeal, namely Service Tax Appeal No.53307 of 2015, learned Representative submitted that the Principal Commissioner committed an error in not extending the benefit of the advances from the taxable value of service tax. 7. Dr.Radhe Tallo, learned Authorised Representative for the Department has, however, reiterated the findings recorded in the three impugned orders. In regard to the three appeals filed by the Department, learned Authorised Representative submitted that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Bhayana Builders had been assailed by the Department before the Delhi High Court and that is why the present appeals had been filed. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Representatives of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cificity that the levy of service tax can only be on works contracts, and the measure of tax can only be on that portion of works contracts which contain a service element which is to be derived from the gross amount charged for the works contract less the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of the works contract. This not having been done by the Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that any charge to tax under the five heads in Section 65(105) noticed above would only be of service contracts simpliciter and not composite indivisible works contracts. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17. We find that the assessees are correct in their submission that a works contract is a separate species of contract distinct from contracts for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract. 25. In fact, by way of contrast, Section 67 post amendment (by the Finance Act, 2006) for the first time prescribes, in cases like the present, where the provision of service is for a consideration which is not ascertainable, to be the amount as may be determined in the prescribed manner." 12. Thus, it was not permissible for the Revenue to issue a notice demanding service tax under "construction of complex services" as defined under section 65 (105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 when the nature of activity was of "works contract". In this connection, it would also be pertinent to refer the following decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable under works contract service, demand raised under wrong head of service cannot sustain." 9. Consequently, we set aside the demand for service tax made under the (CICS) category for Construction of foundation/ roads as well as repair of roads." 14. Likewise, a demand of service tax under a particular category could not have been confirmed under a different category. Thus, in Service Tax Appeal No.53251 of 2015, the demand of service tax could not have been confirmed under "works contract" when the show cause notice was issued under "construction of complex services". 15. In regard to Service Tax Appeal No.53307 of 2015 filed by the assessee, the contention of learned Authorized Representative of the Appellant is that the benefit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual advance received during the year, computed the service tax on closing balance of advances as appearing in its Balance Sheets. Further, Department has computed the demand int he present SCN, on the basis of the gross taxable value computed in previous SCN. Accordingly, error in the previous year has again been reiterated in the present SCN as well." 17. No reason has been assigned by the Principal Commissioner as to why the certificate of the Chartered Accountant was not accepted. It is clear that instead of considering the actual advances received during a particular year, the Principal Commissioner has computed taxable value on the closing balance of advances as appearing in the balance sheets. Learned Representative for the assessee ....