M/S. Priyanka Construction Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/150/2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a construction service provider availed the 67% abatement without including in the gross value the value of materials supplied free of cost by the client, the question stands settled by the Larger Bench decision in Bhayana Builders Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner, and the Tribunal is bound to follow it; an order that is identical on the point to that Larger Bench ruling, and to decisions following it, must be set aside in the assessee's favour.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/87/VDR-II/2008 dated 19.06.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara.
M/s. Priyanka Construction Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 28.10.2015
ORDER No. A/11575/2015 Dated 28.10.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants were providing Construction Services/ Commercial or Industrial Construction Services as defined under Section 65 (30a) (10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005)/ Section 65 (25b) (16.06.2005 onwards), of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant availed abatement of 67% without including the value of the materials supplied by their clients free of cost in the gross value charged on such clients.
2. The issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner 2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri. LB). Subsequently, the Tribunal following the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of ATR Constructions Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Ghaziabad 2014 (35) STR 92 Tri. Del.) and Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2015 (37) STR 1022 (Tri. Del.), allowed the appeals of the assessee on the identical issue.
3. In view of the above discussion and following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set-aside. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free