M/S. R.K. Agarwal vs C.C.E. Jaipur-I
- CitationService Tax Appeal No. ST/503/2008-ST[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question of whether the value of free-supply material must be included in the gross amount charged for construction service under notification no. 15/04-ST is governed by the Larger Bench decision in Bhayana Builders v. CCE, and the impugned order, which took the contrary view, cannot be sustained on that basis; the Tribunal accordingly sets aside the order and allows the appeal with consequential relief.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 50 (RKS) ST/JPR-1/2008 dated: 17.04.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur-I]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should 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 copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. R.K. Agarwal Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. G.K. Sarkar, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. Pramod Kumar Jain, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/decision.21.01.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. /2015-ST(Br)
Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench):
1. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether for the purpose of exemption notification no. 15/04-ST the value of free supply material is to be included in the gross amount charged for the construction service provided by the appellant. The Department was of the view that the value of the free supply material has to be included for determining the gross amount charged for the purpose of notification no. 15/04-CE and it is on this basis that service tax demand of Rs. 16,25,492/- has been confirmed against the appellant along with interest thereon under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1944 and penalty has been imposed under section 76 & 78.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Both the sides agree that the issue involved in this case stands decided in the appellants favour by the Larger Bench judgment, Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders vs CCE reported in 2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri. Del). In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Rakesh Kumar)
Member(Technical)
(S.K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 1
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