TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant are providing taxable services and receive mining contract from M/s. Utkal Alumina International Limited (UAIL) through an "Assignment cum Novation Agreement". By virtue of that agreement, all the rights and obligations under the original 'Baphilimali Mining Agreement' dated 14.05.2012 between UAIL and one M/s. KV Mohan Rao & Co. Pvt. Ltd. were transferred to the appellant. 2.1. The appellant were also issued a works contract for "Expansion of Ash Pond" vide an agreement dated 03.10.2016 from M/s. National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO). The appellant was also issued a work order for construction of water storage reservoir including pumping facilities at NALCO Township, Dmanjodi by NALCO. 3. The appellant were paying s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8] 91 taxmann.com 109 (SC)] which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Vantage International Management Company v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai (East), [2021] 124 taxmann.com 355 (Mumbai - CESTAT) 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue supported the impugned order. 8. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 9. We find that the short issue involved in the matter is whether the free supplies of materials is required to be added in the taxable value of the services provided by the appellant or not. 9.1. The said issue came up before this tribunal in the case of Vantage International Management Company (supra) wherein this Tribunal observed as under: - "7. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in order to attract the provisions of Rule 3 (b) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Similarly, the provisions of Rule 5 ibid also would not attract in this case inasmuch as no cost of fuel was charged or billed by the appellant to the recipient of service. 8. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integara, in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd.(supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The relevant paragraphs in the said judgement are extracted herein below: 11. As already pointed out in the beginning, all these assessees are covered by Section 65(25b) of the Act as they are rendering 'cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he word "gross" is only meant to indicate that it is the total amount charged without deduction of any expenses. Merely by use of the word "gross" the Department does not get any jurisdiction to go beyond the contract value to arrive at the value of taxable services. Further, by the use of the word "charged", it is clear that the same refers to the amount billed by the service provider to the service receiver. Therefore, in terms of Section 67, unless an amount is charged by the service provider to the service recipient, it does not enter into the equation for determining the value on which service tax is payable. b. The amount charged should be for "for such service provided" : Section 67 clearly indicates that the gross amount charged by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice provided or to be provided' by the service provider/assessee. Again, obviously, in respect of the goods/materials supplied by the service recipient, no service is provided by the assessee/service provider. Explanation 3 to subsection (1) of Section 67 removes any doubt by clarifying that the gross amount charged for the taxable service shall include the amount received towards the taxable service before, during or after provision of such service, implying thereby that where no amount is charged that has not to be included in respect of such materials/goods which are supplied by the service recipient, naturally, no amount is received by the service provider/assessee. Though, sub-section (4) of Section 67 states that the value shall be....