2023 (10) TMI 1090

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 11,47,641/- deposited by the appellant and gave cum tax benefit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also did not extend the benefit of 67% of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. However, he has dropped the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, but has not extended benefit of Section 80 and also confirmed the penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing services in relation to building and civil structure or a part thereof, falling under category of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services". During the course of audit of the records of M/s Ganga Acrowools Ltd, it was observed that during the period 22.06.2006 to 31.08....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not allowed the benefit of abatement on the gross value to the extent of 67%, which has been allowed by the Govt. of India under Notification 1/2006-ST, for the works which involve supply of material and service (composite contract). He further submits that the invoices which were raised by the Appellant to the Party make it clear that Appellant was providing composite service which involved supply of material alongwith service. He also submits that the appellant has also obtained a Certificate from the Party that work undertaken by Appellant was inclusive of material and goods required for completion, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he works contract cannot be held taxable prior to 01.06.2007 as Commercial Construction Services. • Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. has held that the introduction of a new entry for the purpose of levy of tax presupposes that it was not covered by any of the pre-existing entries. • Ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision in the case of National Building Construction Corp. Ltd. v. CCE, Shillong 2022 (66) GSTL 476 (Tri.-Kolkata) wherein it has been held that the composite contracts for construction involving supply of goods and services executed prior to 1.06.2007 not leviable to Service Tax under Commercial or Industrial Constr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has also issued a certificate dated 30.12.2010 to the Appellant, whereby the Service Recipient has certified that all work undertaken by the Appellant is inclusive of material and goods required for completion of the job/contract. Further, they have also certified that the present contract is a composite contract of supply of goods and service and that the Service Recipient has not paid anything for the supply of material separately. 8. Besides this, the service recipient is also admittedly deducted 4% Works Contract Tax TDS under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 on the payment made to the appellant and this 4% Works Contract Tax TDS is only deducted if the payment is made for a Works Contract in terms of Section 27 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005. ....