TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pipes, valves etc. It has been the contention of the department that during the Financial Year 2010-11 and 2011-12, the appellant has provided Works Contract service to M/s. GSPC Gas Company Limited wherein steel pipes and valves were provided by the service recipient and as per the provisions of Notification No. 23/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, the value of the free supplied materials should have been included in the assessable value for discharging service tax liability under the composition service tax rate of 4%. A show cause notice dated 26.08.2013 came to be issued to the appellant whereunder the service tax demand of Rs. 61,06,366/- has been demanded under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, interest and penal provisions as per Finance Act, 1994 has also been invoked. The matter has been adjudicated by the impugned order-in-original whereunder all the charges as leveled in the show cause notice have been confirmed. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has stated that appellant has entered into various contracts with M/s. GSPC Gas Company Limited for laying, testing and commissioning of steel pipeline network and station piping for upcoming CNG stations. As per t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. Chennai) (c) HSIL Limited v. CCE, Jaipur - 2022 (6) TMI 1262 (Tri. Delhi) (d) National Building Construction Corp. Limited v. CCE & ST - 2021 (7) TMI 1350 (Tri. Kolkata) (e) Navsarjan Engineering v. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad - 2018 (11) TMI 1390 (Tri. Ahmedabad) (f) CCE & CGST, Delhi v. GD Builders - 2018 (8) TMI 1107 (Tri. Ahmedabad) (g) Jay Engineers v. CST, Ahmedabad - 2019 (5) TMI 156 (Tri. Ahmedabad) (h) M/s Bhaveen Construction Pvt. Limited v. CCE & ST - 2019 (2) TMI 1306 (Tri. Ahmedabad) It has also been submitted that department has wrongly interpreted the explanation inserted vide Notification No. 23/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 that since pipeline and valve provided by M/s. GSPC Gas Company Limited should have been included in the gross amount charged is a gross violation of provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. As Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 provided that "the value of taxable services shall be gross amount charged by service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him". Thus, when something is not charged by the service provider for the service provided by them it should not form part of the value of the service for the purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provided by the service provider. 17) Faced with the aforesaid situation, the argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue was that in case the assessees did not want to include the value of goods/materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient, they were not entitled to the benefit of notification dated September 10, 2004 read with notification dated March 01, 2005. It was argued that since building construction contract is a composite contract of providing services as well as supply of goods, the said notifications were issued for the convenience of the assessees. According to the Revenue, the purpose was to bifurcate the component of goods and services into 67%:33% and to provide a ready formula for payment of service tax on 33% of the gross amount. It was submitted that this percentage of 33% attributing to service element was prescribed keeping in view that in the entire construction project, roughly 67% comprises the cost of material and 33% is the value of services. However, this figure of 67% was arrived at keeping in mind the totality of goods and materials that are used in a construction project. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the assessees to include th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncerned with exemption notifications which were issued in respect of 'taxable services' covered by sub-clause (zzq) of clause (105) read with clause (25b) and sub-clause (zzzh) of clause (105) read with clause (30a) and (91a) of Section 65 of Chapter V of the Act. This Court in the aforesaid judgment in respect of five 'taxable services' *viz. Section 65(105)(g), (zzd), (zzh), (zzq) and (zzzh)+ has held as under: "23. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the fixed taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines 'taxable service' as 'any service provided'. Further, while referring to exemption notifications, it observed: "42. ...Since the levy itself of service tax has been found to be non-existent, no question of any exemption would arise." It is clear from the above that the service tax is to be levied in respect of 'taxable services' and for the purpose of arriving at 33% of the gross amount charged, unless value of some goods/materials is specifically included by the Legislature, that....