w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. William Infrastructures, Bangalore v/s Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore

    Final Order Nos.20609-20610 of 2014 ST/Stay/26393 & 26394 of 2013 ST/26081 & 26082 of 2013-DB [Arising Out of Order-in-Original Nos. 142 & 143 of 2012 dated 29/11/2012 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax , Bangalore ]

    Decided On, 24 April 2014

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. B.S.V. MURTHY
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appearing Parties: N. Anand, Advocate, S. Teli, A.R.



Judgment Text

B.SV. Murthy, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in providing Interior Decorator Service and proceedings were initiated and culminated in the impugned orders confirming demand of service tax of Rs. 96,32,341/- in respect of two show-cause notices covering the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11. Besides interest, penalty has also been imposed. The appellant had been paying service tax after availing abatement of 33% under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T.

2. In the impugned order, it has been concluded that service provided by the appellant comes under Interior Decorator Service and claim of the appellant is that they are entitled to abatement of 67% is not correct. Alternative submission made by the appellant is that the appellant is eligible for benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 which provides for exemption from payment of service tax to the extent of value of the goods sold also has been rejected on the ground that invoices raised by the appellant did not show the value of goods sold separately but entries are composited once combined value of the goods as well as labour involved.

3. Even though we spent considerable time hearing both sides, in the end, it was found that the matter is required to be remanded. Instead of postponing the event to subsequent date, we consider it appropriate that the matter can be finally decided at this stage itself. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the appeals are taken for final decision.

4. As observed above, the dispute is regarding admissibility of Notification No. 12/2003 which was an alternative submission made by the appellant. We find that as far as this submission is concerned, the issue is covered by decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Bangalore [2010 (19) S.T.R. 75 (Tri.-Bang.)]. Learned counsel submitted that they have documentary evidence to show the actual value of the goods consumed in the provision of service and according to the decision of the Tribunal, in such a case, exemption is available. Therefore, we consider it appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the original authority to verify the evidence that may be produced by the appellant and consider the admissibility of benefit of Notification No. 12/2003. At this stage, learned counsel requested that further submissions made by him may also be directed to be considered at the time of hearing. We do not see any h

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

arm in doing so. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority to consider the matter afresh including any other submissions that may be made by the appellant after giving opportunity to present their case.
O R