TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r etc. They were availing the facility of Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants were also holding service tax registration for providing Legal Consultancy Services along with few other taxable services including the services for Survey and exploration of mineral. During the course of audit of appellants record for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 and the comparison of financial records i.e. balance sheet of the appellant with ST-3 returns filed by them,the department observed that for the Financial year 2016-17, the difference in the assessable income as perST-3 returns and comparison thereof with the value from balance sheet is of Rs.13,37,596/-. Accordingly, service tax of Rs.2,00,639/- on the said amount for the year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L was also provided to Commissioner (Appeals) along with the work order as well as the sample invoices. Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly cited respective work orders in the impugned order, however has failed to take into consideration the agreement as well as the invoices which are specifically showing that the value in the invoices is inclusive of some portion of goods. The documents clarify that the liability of service tax towards Works Contract Act/VAT has been discharged with respect to each of the invoices. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 10 and therefore factually wrong. There is no basis of any noticed difference. The order of confirming demand of service tax on the said differential duty is therefore liable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CL and has paid the service tax on 70% of the amount received from the said recipient. Thus, there is no short payment as is alleged in the impugned order. Learned counsel had also mentioned that all the requisite documents including the comprehensive annual maintaining contracts between the appellant and M/s. MECL were provided to the authorities below. The supply order and the sample invoices were also provided to the Commissioner (Appeals). 5.1 The invoices are placed on record of present appeal as well. Perusal thereof in light of the agreement on record it is clear that M/s. MECL had obtained the Repair Maintenance Service from the appellant with the clear understanding that the supply of spares required in the maintenance (excludin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt shown under Business Auxiliary Services head in Balance sheet and declared in the ST-3 returns, to which the appellant have contended that they provided work contract services namely "repair and maintenance" services to M/s. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited along with supply of Machinery Items, hence as per Rule 2A of the Sevice Tax (Determination of value) Rule, 2006, the Appellant was liablt to pay service tax on 70% amount of the total amount charged for the works contract. In support of their claim, the appellant also provided copy of supply orders namely 0453/MECL/MM/FIL/PUR/PDC/82-A dated 21.09.2015 and 0254/MECL/MM/PUR/PDC/82 dated 10.12.2014 & sample invoices issued to M/s. Mineral Exploration Corp. Ltd. 10. While....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e therefore held not sustainable. Agreement itself is sufficient to show that the activity rendered by the appellants was a Works Contract Service. Rule 2A of Valuation Rules, 2006 reads as follows: Determination of value of service portion in the execution of a works contract:- Subject to the provisions of Section 67, the value of service portion in the execution of a works contract, referred to in clause (h) of Section 66E of the Act, shall be determined in the following manner namely: (i) Value of service portion in the execution of a works contract shall be equivalent to the gross amount charged for the works contract less the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of the said works contract. Explanation- For t....