Where the goods involved as a part of the service contracts are subjected to the levy of VAT / Sales Tax, the Tribunal held that the classification of service under the category of works contract services was proper and accordingly the assessee was entitled to payment of service tax under the works contract composition scheme [U.B. Engineering Ltd. vs. CCE (2015) 37 STR 999 (Tri.–Mumbai)].
Where the construction services rendered by the appellant were more specifically classifiable under the category of “works contract services” though in respect of which appellant had paid service tax under the category of “construction of complex services” or “commercial or industrial construction services”, it was held that reclassification of the services under the new category of service was permissible. However, it would not be eligible to the benefit of payment of service tax under the composition scheme in view of the Supreme Court decision in Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. vs. Government of India (2012) 28 STR 561 (S.C.) but benefit of Rule 2A of Valuation Rules would be available [Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. vs. CST (2015) 38 STR 38 (Tri.–Del.)].
Where the construction services rendered by the appellant were more specifically classifiable under the category of “works contract services” though in respect of which appellant had paid service tax under the category of “construction of complex services” or “commercial or industrial construction services”, it was held that reclassification of the services under the new category of service was permissible. However, it would not be eligible to the benefit of payment of service tax under the composition scheme in view of the Supreme Court decision in Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. vs. Government of India (2012) 28 STR 561 (S.C.) but benefit of Rule 2A of Valuation Rules would be available [Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. vs. CST (2015) 38 STR 38 (Tri.–Del.)].
No comments:
Post a Comment