TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmination in these appeals of M/s Otis Elevator Co (India) Ltd is the authority vested in officers designated under Finance Act, 1994 to alter the taxing entry for discharge of liability with intent to compel a particular mode of assessment peculiar to that entry. 2. Impugned before us are order-in-original no. 05-06/STVI/RS/2014 dated 31st December 2014 of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-VI confirming recovery of Rs. 122,59,41,753 for 2007-2012 and Rs. 15,21,74,893 for 2012-13 which itself has a chequered history to be adverted to presently and order-in-original no. 43/STVII/RS/2014 dated 27th February 2015 of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-VII confirming recovery of Rs. 13,86,68,580 for 2013-14. During the disputed p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in appeal no. ST/88427/14. On the plea of the appellant that their contention, in response to the show cause notice, of the error in inclusion of value of materials in the assessable value, for reason of having been subject to VAT levy, had not been taken cognizance of by the adjudicating authority, the first of the disputes was remanded back to the original authority for ascertainment of that claim before disposal in fresh proceedings. Consistent with that stand, the challenge to the 'demand-cum-recovery notice' for the following year was also similarly remanded vide order of 26th August 2014. Both these were adjudicated together in the first of the orders now impugned before us. The appeal against the original confirmation of demand fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Senior Counsel. Most of these are intended to place before us the inappropriateness of the legal authority adopted, and the manner in which tax liability was sought be fastened, by the adjudicating authority even in the context of the law as it stood then. In our opinion, with the seminal judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd [2015 (39) STR 913 (SC)] and in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd [2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC)], we need not revisit the legality or propriety of the impugned order adjudicated without the benefit of judicial enlightenment on the very issue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. The case of Revenue is built upon the inclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... This would have, in the light of later decisions, accorded finality to the dispute. It is also seen that the demands for 2012-13 and 2013-14 were confirmed without issue of show cause notice even though the issue of 'demand-cum-recovery' notice, premised on the existence of a detailed notice, for the previous period, on identical facts as applied to elaborated law, was not tenable, after July 2012 when the 'negative list' regime altered the definition of taxable service on which the first notice was heavily dependent. 8. Even if in the near impossible circumstance of the adjudicating authority having anticipated the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro Ltd reversing the law settled by the Tribunal, the thrusting of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for composition cannot be presumed to exist. 9. The claim of the appellant for exclusion of the value of goods and materials sold by them to the recipient of the service for computation of the assessable value to be adopted for charging the tax under section 66 of Finance Act, 1994 is not easily discarded as notification no 12/2003-/ST dated 20 June 2003, while imposing certain conditions, does not restrict eligibility thereof to some specified 'taxable services' and, therefore, more particularly owing to the spirit of the composition scheme, entitling providers of 'works contract services'. 10. The frailty, if any, in the translation of 'The moving finger writes; and, having writ , moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it bac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Larsen & Toubro Ltd, that of the Larger Bench (though by majority opinion) in Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2015-TIOL-527CESTAT-DEL-LB], along with some predecessor decisions, prevailed as settled law in terms of which transactions, that could well be 'works contracts', were liable to tax under the existing 'taxable services'. In the circumstances of extreme judicial tergiversation, doubts in the minds of service providers can only be questioned in the light of evidence to the contrary. No such situation appears on record. The demand in the first show cause notice is thus to be limited to the normal period prescribed in section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 and recoveri....