Case Law Details

Case Name : Ultratech Concrete Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Final Order No. ST/A/476 of 2012-CUS
Date of Judgement/Order : 12/06/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (1011) CESTAT Delhi (324)

CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH

Ultratech Concrete

V/s.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi

FINAL ORDER NO. ST/A/476 of 2012-CUs

STAY ORDER NO. ST/S/714 OF 2012-cus

STAY APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2012

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2012

JUNE 12, 2012

ORDER

Mathew John, Technical Member – Appellants are engaged in business of manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). While supplying the goods they delivered it at the desired location on site by pumping of the RMC to the spot where it was required. Revenue has made out a case that this activity is covered under ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ and imposed service tax on the entire consideration received for RMC after allowing the abatement of 67% under Notification No.l/06-ST.

2. The submission of the appellant is that this activity is part of the sale transaction and it is not part of any construction services. The counsel submits that the same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of GMK Concrete Mixing (P.) Ltd. v. CST [Final Order No. ST/591/2011 (PB), dated 4-11-2011]. He also submits that the same issue was decided by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ACC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [STRP No. 124 of 2011(Tax) and STRP Nos. 146-156 of 2011, dtd. 25.08.11.] The submission of the counsel is that since the issue has been decided by the Tribunal and a High Court, the matter may be decided without pre-deposit and the appeal itself may be decided on the basis of above decisions.

3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that though the matter appears to be covered by above two decisions, only stay petition may be allowed and Revenue may be given time to see whether there is any difference between the case already decided and this case.

4. Considered arguments of both the sides and we have studied the decisions and facts of the cases and we find that the facts are identical and there is nothing more to be decided in this appeal. Therefore after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we have taken up the appeal itself and we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

NF

More Under Service Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031