Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Ahlcon Builders & Developers Pvt. ... vs Cce, Indore on 20 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV DATE OF HEARING : 20/09/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 20/09/2016. Service Tax Appeal No. 1707 of 2010 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. IND/238/2010 dated 26/08/2010 passed by The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Indore.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :Seen copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :Yes Department Authorities? M/s Ahlcon Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE, Indore Respondent
Appearance Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM :Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53717/2016 Dated : 20/09/2016 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellants is a commercial builder engaged in construction activities, for which purpose he is registered with the Revenue. During the period relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, the appellant availed the benefit of Notification No. 15/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST which permitted abatement of 67% of the value of the services.
2. The lower authorities have denied the benefit of the said notification on the ground that the appellants have been free supplied the materials by the service recipient, in which case the benefit of the notification would not be available to them. However, on this count, we find that the issue stand decided by Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 49 (Tri. LB).
3. Learned Advocate has also drawn our attention to another decision of the Tribunal in another assessees case being order No. A/11607/2014 dated 02/9/14. Learned Advocate has also submitted that in respect of some of the contracts, they were working under the works contract which has been held as non-taxable prior to 01/6/2007 in terms of the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE & CUS, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.). She also assails the demand on the issue of limitation.
4. We, are of the view that in as much as the above decisions were not available before the authorities below, it is deemed fit that the impugned orders are set aside and the matter remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision, after examining the entire facts, in the light of the law declared in the above referred decisions. The issue of limitation is also kept open for the Adjudicating Authority to re-decide. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (V. Padmanabhan) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
2