TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Industrial Construction service and (iii) Works Contract Service. On intelligence gathered that appellant is not paying service tax on the erection and commissioning and installation services even though they have collected service tax from their clients, investigation was initiated. On scrutiny of records, it was noted that during the period from October 2007 to April 2008, the appellant provided erection, commissioning and installation service, commercial or industrial construction service and works contract service and realized taxable value along with service tax. However, they have not paid the service tax of Rs.47,25,083/- collected from their customers. It was also noted that they had not filed the statutory periodical returns for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ployees. According to the department, the said service was in the nature of personal benefit extended to the employees and therefore are not used for providing any output services. The credit availed on such output services is not available as per Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 and the appellant has wrongly availed the credit on such services to the tune of Rs.12,24,474/- for the period April 2006 to March 2010. Show cause notice dt. 18.10.2011 was issued invoking the extended period proposing to demand short paid service tax along with interest and for imposing penalties. The show cause notice also proposed to recover wrongly availed credit of insurance services. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand and appropriated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irmed under erection, commission and installation services or works contract service for the period October 2007 to August 2008. 7. The demand contested in the present appeal is only with regard to the differential duty of service tax to the tune of Rs.26,08,254/- for the period December 2008 to March 2010 confirmed under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) alleging that the appellant is not eligible for abatement. The department is of the view that the appellant having availed cenvat credit on various input services, the abatement of 67% on the taxable value is not applicable. It is submitted by the counsel that the appellant had already reversed the credit which would be equal to non-availment of credit. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d vide decision reported in (2023) 10 Centax 171 (SC) [05.09.2023], the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the department and thereby affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the differential amount of service tax raised under the category of 'commercial or industrial construction services' therefore cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. 10. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the insurances services were availed by the appellant for benefit of the employees and the period involved is prior to 1.4.2011. The said services are relating to the 'activity of business' of the appellant and is eligible for credit. The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Nagpur Vs Ultratech Cem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that for the period December 2008 to March 2009 (2009-10), the appellant is liable to pay service tax of Rs.26,08,254/- under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services. In para 3.0 and 3.1 of the SCN it is categorically stated that the appellant has wrongly availed abatement of 67% as per Notification No.1/2006-ST dt. 1.3.2006 and therefore is liable to pay differential tax of Rs.26,08,254/- for the period December 2008 to March 2010 under commercial or industrial construction services. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the demand under the said category cannot sustain for the reason that the nature of contracts are composite in nature. The dispute with regard to denial of benefit of abatement itself establishes th....