2025 (8) TMI 936

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest under Section 75 and penalties under Section 78 and 771(c) of the Act. The Revenue has also separately filed the appeal challenging the same Order-in-Original on the ground that the demand is required to be confirmed by holding that abatement in terms of Notification No.1/2006-ST., dated 01.03.2006 is not available as the value of free supply of material, which is part of the contract value and which has been charged by the assessee in the bills raised to the service recipients, has not been included in the taxable value. 2. The appellant is engaged in providing construction services and is discharging service tax under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" after taking the benefit of ab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ses. c) Demand is completely time barred. 6. On the issue of availing abatement under Notification No. 1/2006 regarding value of free supply of material received from the customers, the submission of the learned Counsel is that the issue is no longer res-integra as the Tribunal has decided the issue in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE-2013(32)STR 49, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court-2018 (10) GSTL 118(SC). The issue was whether the value of goods/material supplied or provided free of cost by service recipient and used for providing the taxable service of construction or industrial complexes to be included in computation of gross amount for valuation of the taxable service under Section 67 of the Act and for availing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1), (2) and (3). Moreover, no such manner is prescribed which includes the value of free goods/material supplied by the service recipient for determination of the gross value." 7. The principle enunciated by the Apex Court is clearly applicable to the issue involved in the present case and accordingly, we hold that the appellant rightly claimed abatement of 67% under Notification No.1/2006. Moreover, the learned Counsel has referred to the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, titled as Akriti Construction Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur-I,- 2019(6) TMI 866 CESTAT-NEW DELHI  in respect of previous period from April 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009, allowing the appeal in favour of the appellant following the decision of the Apex Court in Bh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....truction is not liable to service tax. Thus the conclusion stands that these activities were non-commercial in nature and did not fall under the levy of taxable services. 9. Lastly, on the issue that service tax is not leviable on construction activities related to independent residential houses, the learned Counsel has again relied on the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, Aakriti Construction, holding that construction of residential houses were for individuals for their personal use and the same were clearly excluded from 'Construction of Residential Complex Services'. Further, we find that the appellant has placed on record the certificates of various individuals stating that the appellant had either constructed a house for th....