TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd rejected the appeal of the appellant. 1.1 The facts of the case in brief are that the scrutiny of the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant revealed to the department that during the period April-2007 to September-2007, October-2010 to March-2011 and October-2011 to March-2012, the appellant had availed the abatement of Rs. 4.35 lakhs and Rs. 25.96 lakhs on "Erection and Commissioning Services" and abatement of Rs. 8.47 lakhs in case of "Construction of Commercial or Industrial Building Services." It was observed that the appellant had also availed Cenvat Credit on input services during the said period and hence violated the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1st March, 2006. It was also observed that for the rest of the period (half year e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the provider of the construction services for providing such service whereas, in this case the appellant had failed to include value of raw material supplied while rendering the services, in the gross value charged by them. The appellant is, therefore, not eligible to avail the benefit of the notification as mentioned above. Further, the scrutiny of the evidence does not prove the contention put forth by the appellant in as much as the ST-3 returns reveals that the appellant had constantly availed the Cenvat Credit during the period in question and hence, the defense arguments placed by the appellant appeared to be vague. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,21,202/- in case of Erection, Commissioning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consultant for the appellant also submitted that appellant has paid Gujarat VAT at full rate of 5% on this value of abatement and Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 6th April, 2024 has been submitted as its evidence. Thus, demanding service tax on abatement will amount to indirectly, demanding service tax on sale of goods which is out of the stock of levy under the Finance Act, 1994. The learned consultant also submitted that the first Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner confirmed the demand merely on the assumption that once the appellant has taken Cenvat Credit for any contract, no abatement can be allowed to that assessee for any other outward supply under any other contract. From the reading of Notification No. 1/2006-ST,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with the value of the service part so as to determine the gross value and thereafter applying the rates of abatement. As the appellant has defied the provisions of the notification, therefore, the benefit of abatement cannot be extended to the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority and the learned Commissioner has correctly confirmed the demand of service tax on the value claimed as abatement under the respective ST-3 returns. He prayed that the impugned order may be confirmed and the appeal may be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned consultant for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative for the department and perused the record and submissions made by both the parties. 4.1 I am of the view that the learned Commissioner (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the perusal of provisions incorporated in Notification No. 1/2006-ST, it is clear that Cenvat Credit is not allowed only for the inputs / input services which are used for providing such taxable services. Thus, this notification is 'qua output service' and not 'qua supplier'. This notification in no way creates any restriction on availing Cenvat Credit for other inputs / input services used for providing other services on which abatement is not claimed. 4.4 I also agree with the learned consultant for the appellant that demand for the month of September-2007, regarding which abatement of Rs. 4.35 lacs has been claimed, is barred by limitation as the appellant has clearly shown this abatement in their return ST-3 and there can be no su....