TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Authority did not accept the VCES Declaration made by the appellant on the allegation that the appellant had not made true disclosure of their Service Tax liability. 1.3. Consequent to rejection of their VCES Application, a Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.2014 was issued to the appellant in terms of Section 111(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013) alleging interalia that on scrutiny of the documents submitted by the appellant it was noticed that while providing the services of "construction service other than residential complex including commercial/industrial buildings or civil structure" & "Work Contract Services" the appellant have received gross taxable amount of Rs. 317221753/- towards the taxable services rendered during the period 2009-10 to 2012-13. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice proposed the following: - (i) rejection of the VCES application filed by the appellant on 31.12.2013 because the same was found to be substantially false. (ii) Demand for recovery of Service Tax amounting to Rs.3,44,25,123/- (including cess) pertaining to the Financial Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 along with interest and also proposed appropriation of the amount already de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of the material while rendering the service, which is recorded in paragraph 5.4(a) of the impugned order, but he has not extended the benefit of the abatement only on the ground that the appellant has not claimed the same in the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant. In this regard, it is the appellant's submission that the abatement eligible to them cannot be denied on the ground that they have not claimed it; it is the responsibility of the proper officer to determine the duty liability payable by the appellant after examining the abatement eligible to them; that the substantial benefit of abatement cannot be denied due to minor procedural lapses. In support of this claim, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has inter alia relied upon the following decisions: - (i) Jay Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. v Commissioner of C.Ex, Raigad [2016 (335) E.L.T. 49 (Tri-Mumbai)] (ii) Munna Construction v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Jamshedpur [Final Order No. 77625 of 2024 dated 22.11.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 76359 of 2014 (CESTAT, Kolkata)] 2.1. The appellant submitted a work sheet showing the taxable value received by them during the period under dispute and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als by the appellant while rendering the said services, as can be seen from paragraph 5.4(a) of the impugned order. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the said paragraph in the impugned order is reproduced below: "I have thoroughly examined the relevant Challans/Bills raised by the said Noticee against M/s Birla Corporation, M/s UltraTech Cement Ltd., M/s Reshmi Metaliks Ltd., M/s Ganapati Advisory Ltd., M/s Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd. etc., against the supply of mainly, Stone Chips, Stone Boulder, Sand, Bamboos, MS Pipes, Clamps, Bricks, Marbles-Tiles etc..." 6.1. After recording the utilization of materials in the rendering of Construction Service and Works Contract Service by the appellant, however, the Ld. adjudicating authority has not extended the benefit of 67% abatement on the Gross Contract Value in terms of the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, as amended, on the ground that the appellant has not claimed the same in the ST-3 returns filed. In this regard, we are of the view that the abatement eligible to the appellant cannot be denied on the ground that they have not claimed it. It is the responsibility of the proper officer to determi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chandigarh], the Tribunal at Chandigarh, under similar circumstances, allowed abatement at the rate of 67% of the value, observing as follows: - "6. Having heard both the sides and having perused the records of the case, we find that the contract is clearly for the construction on the basis of rate fixed for per sq. ft.; the contract indicates quality of the material in some clauses; moreover, the copies of the VAT returns and the invoices clearly indicate the purchase of steel, cement and other material required for the construction; the fact that the invoices raised by the supplier of the appellants contain reference to the address of M/s Kangaroo Industries who have awarded the contract to the appellants; Certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant and Chartered Engineer, go on to establish the fact of use of material in the work executed by the appellants. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the contract was not simplicitior but was a composite contract. Therefore, we find that the appellants are entitled for the abatement of 67% of the value as claimed by them. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside and we do so." ....