TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the order passed by the Additional Commissioner adjudicating the show cause notice dated 16.05.2014 for the period 2012-13 and the show cause notice dated 20.04.2015 for the period 2013-14. 2. During the period in dispute namely from 2012 to 2014, the appellant undertook the following activities for Delhi Jal Board, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi Municipal Corporation and Larsen & Toubro: A. Trading/Pure Sale of goods: (i) The appellant supplied/sold goods such as electric motors, pump sets, water pipes to its customers and the customers arranged/installed the said goods on their own. B. Composite Works: (i) The appellant also undertook the activities which are composite in nature. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,52,619 Rs. 32,00,732 Rs. 36,53,351 Issue-III: Demand on Trade Discount Rs. 44,001 Rs. 44,001 Total Rs. 5,38,623 Rs. 38,38,977 Rs. 43,77,600 5. Shri A.K. Batra, learned consultant for the appellant submitted that in so far as issue no. I contained the aforesaid table is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error in confirming the demand as entire value of service tax that has been confirmed pertains to the amount received from the goods sold on which, the appellant had duly discharged VAT. In regard to issue no. II, learned consultant pointed out that this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant in M/s. United Electricals And Mechanical Works vs. CST, D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ason that the bifurcation of 80% and 20% was artificially created. 10. The Tribunal in M/s United Electricals and Mechanical Works [2017(4) TMI 1133-CESTAT, New Delhi], on which reliance has been placed, relied upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal in Gogia Brothers vs. CST, Delhi [2017 (1) TMI 163-CESTAT-New Delhi]. In the aforesaid decision in Gogia Brothers, the Tribunal observed as follows: "5. The only dispute in the present appeal is relating to value adopted by the appellant for discharging service tax liability. Admittedly, the work orders mentioned the bifurcation of value for supply of materials as well as rendering of service to the proportion of 80% -20%. Admittedly further, there is supply of materials in these c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of service tax liability by the appellant. We note that almost similar set of facts were the subject matter of discussion. In the said order, Tribunal observed that the denial of material portion was on bland allegation without any documentary evidence. If the Revenue has alleged artificial bifurcation, it is for them to substantiate the allegations by producing sufficient documentary evidence. We note that in the present case, on similar set of contracts, there are separate set of invoices with payment of VAT on sale of goods. As such, there is no justification for inclusion of such transaction value for levy of service tax. Accordingly, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained." 11. After placing reliance upon the aforesai....