Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (4) TMI 1540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.08.2014 No. 11/2013 dt. 12.02.2013 No. 157/2013 dated 30.09.2013 No. 005-006/2020-21 dated 21.07.2020 passed by Ld. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Udaipur in remand proceedings Show Cause Notice dated 3.9.2013 14.9.2011 7.8.2012 23.10.2007 22.10.2010 Period in dispute April 2012 to Match 2013 April 2010 to March 2011 April 2011 to March 2012 1.8.2004 to 30.09.2007 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 Service Tax Rs. 13,97,264/- Rs. 44,34,322/- Rs. 26,48,329/- Rs. 1,72,96,652/- [94,97,964 + 77,98,688] 2. The facts which culminated into the impugned orders are as follows:- The appellant, herein, Gainwell Commosales Private Limited was earlier known as M/s Tractors India Private Limited. The appellants had obtained the service tax registration for rendering services under the category of Maintenance and Repair Services, Goods Transportation Agency Services and erection and Commissioning Services. During the audit of the records of the appellant, it was observed that the appellants had entered into contract with M/s Hindustan Zinc for maintenance and repair of their heavy dumpers and were collecting charges under the name of op....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. iii). Logistics fee on which the Appellant paid service tax, since this was for recovery of overheads on the site of provision of services. It is further submitted that the impugned show cause notices had reached this Tribunal earlier in form of Service Tax Appeal No. 66/2009 and Service Tax Appeal No. 449/2012. Both those appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal vide common Final Order No. 54655-54656/2016 dt. 4.10.2016 with directions for remanding the matter to the Commissioner for re-adjudication after considering the pleas/grounds raised by the appellant. In remand proceedings, the appellant filed the written synopsis on 11.10.2019 but the Commissioner again has confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,72,96,652/- on the differential value of consideration under sub-clause 1 and 2 as mentioned above, despite that charges under clause 1 are such on which the VAT was paid by the appellant. The said order has been challenged in Service Tax Appeal No. 51196/2020. The remaining three appeals are with respect to the subsequent show cause notices where the demand has been confirmed under Maintenance and Repair Service observing that the present transaction do ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are parts for the period prior to 01.07.2012 or not? 7. We find that it is a fact on record that maintenance and repair contracts as were entered between appellant and M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited are the composite contracts involving supply of goods as well as for providing the service. Such Contracts were there is a contract of supply of goods as well as of providing services, are termed as 'Works Contracts' and the same were made taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 under the category of 'Works Contract Services' as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro (supra) in paragraph 24 drew a distinction between the service contracts simpliciter and a composite works contracts which would involve both services and goods and held that it is only w.e.f. June 01, 2007 that composite contracts can be subjected to levy of service tax and not before this date. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced below: "24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) this was not liable to pay Service Tax at all. W.e.f. 01.06.2007. 8. We find that similar issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Xerox India Ltd. reported as 2019 (20) GSTL 96 (Tri.-Chand.) wherein this Tribunal has held that if service has been provided along with material and the value of material supplied cannot be vivisected, in that circumstances, appropriate classification of the service shall be works contract service and same is not taxable prior to 01.06.2007. Hence, prior to 1.6.2007, even the service portion of a composite contract was outside the ambit of service tax net. Accordingly, the repair and maintenance services under clause (zzg) of Section 65(105) refers only to contracts for service simpliciter and not composite contracts like the present ones. Therefore, no service tax is leviable on such composite contracts upto 1.6.2007. Similar proposition has been reiterated in the following cases: • Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 (63) GSTL 257(SC) • SEW Infrastructure Limited (Formerly Known As "M/S Sew Constructions Ltd.) vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat service tax was not leviable on composite contracts up to 01.07.2012 and the period involved in this appeal is from April 2009 to June 2012. Such being the position, the impugned order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained." 11. In the appellant's own case titled as M/s Gainwell Commosales Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi reported as 2023 VIL 600 CESTAT KOLKATA, this Tribunal has set-aside the similar demands on merits as well as grounds of limitation. Resultantly, we hold that the confirmation of demand for the period till 01.07.2012 is not sustainable. The contracts in question were not for the service simpliciter of Maintenance & Repair but were in the nature of Works Contract Service. 12. Coming to the impugned demand for the period post 01.07.2012, we observe from the show cause notice dated 03.09.2013 as issued for the post July 2007 amendment but the amended provisions have not been mentioned in the said show cause notice. It is utmost mandatory for the Department to first establish that the nature of the services subsequently and the respective charging provisions and the heavy burden is cast upon....