2023 (7) TMI 1180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uction Service" and started paying service tax w.e.f. 16.06.2005; they have been availing abatement of 67%. Revenue, on scrutiny of ST-3 Returns for the period from October 2006 to September 2007, observed that the appellant is not eligible for Notification No.01/2006. Accordingly, two show-cause notices dated 27.08.2008 and 20.01.2009 were issued. The Original Authority vide OIO dated 30.10.2009 confirmed the demand raised. The Appellate Authority vide Order dated 15.11.2010 held that the Agreement entered into between the appellant and their clients was for renovation and remodelling and was limited to the completion or finishing of the work and therefore, no abatement is available. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Building Construction Corporation Ltd.- 2022 (66) GSTL 476 (Tri. Kolkata). 4. Learned Counsel submits that even if it is held that the service provided by the appellants is classifiable under "Commercial and Industrial Construction Service", the benefit of Notification No.12/2003 dated 20.06.2003 is available. He submits that the show-cause notice dated 27.08.2008 is time barred as the appellants have been regularly filing the ST-3 Returns and the last Return was filed on 25.04.2007; moreover, the issue being settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015, there were sufficient reasons for the appellant to have a different opinion than held by the Revenue; for issues relating to interpretation, no extended period can be invoked. He subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the case of the appellants is squarely covered by the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as it is not in dispute that the service rendered by the appellant is under a composite contract and it is also not denied that material was not the part of service. We find that this Bench in the case of very same appellant vide Final Order No.62195-62197/2018 held that: "5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that it is not disputed that appellant is executing the works of finishing assigned to them along with material. Therefore, in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro Limited (supra) merits classification of the services r....