M/S. Raviraj Infra Projects Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIO-RAJ-EXCUS-000-COM-05-14-15 dated 22.5.2014, Passed by Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Rajkot )

M/s. Raviraj Infra Projects Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Shri Gurshran H. Virk, Advocate For Revenue : Shri J. Nair, A.R.

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, 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. R.K. Singh, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 02.02.2015

ORDER No. A/10102 / 2015 Dated 02.02.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

The applicant filed this application for early hearing of the appeal. After hearing at length, we find that the appeal may be decided at this stage.z

2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of service Tax under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the demand was raised on various issues including the free supply of materials. He submits that major portion of demand is for the value of free issue of materials would be included in taxable value. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Limited & Others vs. CST, Delhi  2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri. Del.).

3. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority observed that the service provider recovers the cost of the activities either in cash or by other consideration then the value of such service and material are required to be added in the assessable value for charging tax. Learned Advocate also submits that adjudicating authority had not properly considered the other issues. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority should reconsider the main issues, in the light of decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Limited & Others (supra) and also other issues.

4. In view of that, we set-aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Limited & Others (supra) and any other case, in accordance with law. The adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before decision. Early hearing application is dismissed as infructuous. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL

3