TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Goyal , Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Order : [ Per Shri Ashok Jindal ] The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding Service Tax under the category of commercial and industrial construction services. The disputed period is from 01.10.2005 to 31.03.2008 and Show Cause Notice has been issued to the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation order. Therefore the appellant is in appeal before us. 2. Heard the parties. 3. We find that in this case the facts are not in dispute, that the appellant was providing the service along with the materials. In that circumstances, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L & T citation 2015 (39) STR 913 (S.C), the merit classification of the activity is 'Works Contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove the non-service elements from the composite works contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded and not the gross amount of the works contract as a whole from which various deductions have to be made to arrive at the service element in the said contract. We find therefore that this judgment is wholly incorrect in its conclusion that the Finance Act, 1994 contains both the charge and machinery for levy and assessment of service tax on indivisible works contracts." 4. In view of this we ....