ST - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order demanding service tax under category of Construction of residential complex, construction of Industrial buildings and supplied of goods during the period October' 2006 to March' 2012 - Demand of service tax has been raised against assessee on the grounds namely, Construction of residential complex in Hydel power project colony for the power generation company which they use for residence of their staff working on the said dam, Construction of peripherals of construction of hydro electricity dams and Supply of construction equipments/machinery to be used in construction of dams and residential complexes - Contracts for residential complex and Industrial buildings were the composite contract wherein assessee is providing service along with the material, therefore, in light of decision of Apex Court in case of Larsen & Toubro Limited 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST , the merits classification of services is works contract service and SCN has not invoked the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzza) of FA, 1994, to demand of service tax from assessee - Moreover, residential complex which has been constructed by assessee is for personal use of staff of services recipient, therefore, in the light of decision in case of Mall Enterprises 2015-TIOL-2210-CESTAT-MUM demand of service tax is not sustainable - Therefore, demands pertains to said issue is not sustainable, same is set aside - With regard to Supply of Tangible Goods, assessee has not recovered any amount towards service tax, therefore, the payment received by assessee on supply of tangible goods shall be treated as cum tax price and the assessee is entitled for the benefit of same - As assessee was under bona-fide belief that the supply of tangible goods is used in respect of dam, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax, benefit of section 80 of FA, 1994 is given to assessee - In that circumstances, no penalty is imposable on assessee: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : CHANDIGARH CESTAT

ST - During verification of records of assessee, it was noticed that they had not discharged service tax liability on Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Services as well as Outdoor Catering Services - Original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty - The foremost issue for consideration is whether the activity of bagging and shipping work executed by assessee as per the contract amounts to 'supply of man power' - On perusal of contract, it is found that there no condition in the contract to specify particular number of workers - There is nothing in contract to show that assessee has any obligation to supply man power - The employees are under the control and supervision of assessee for executing the work and not under the supervision of MFL - The consideration is not paid by MFL on the basis of number of persons employed but on the basis of work executed - A similar issue was analyzed by Tribunal in case of Bhaghyashree Enterprises 2017-TIOL-1113-CESTAT-MUM wherein the Tribunal had held the issue in favour of assessee holding that such lump sum work order can be considered as job work activity - Amounts received by assessee cannot be taxed under the category of ‚Man Power Recruitment or Supply Services - With regard to Outdoor Catering Services, plea of assessee is that the benefit of Notfn 1/2006-ST has not been extended to them - Assessee is ready to furnish documents to establish the claim of abatement - Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority: CESTAT - Appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI CESTAT

ST - The assessee is engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service in relation to business & commerce to the clients situated outside India - It did not pay service tax on the belief that they came under exempted category of 'export of service' - However, the Revenue opined that assessee did not fulfill mandatory condition of having a commercial establishment outside India, under this category - Duty demand was raised and confirmed by Commr. (A).

Held - The service in question qualifies as export of services and so will not attract service tax liability - The issue in no more res integra considering the Tribunal order in Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd, SGA India Pvt. Ltd., International Overseas Services, GAP International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Bobst India Pvt. Ltd. - Hence, order challenged is set aside: CESTAT (Para 1, 4,5) - Appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

Cus - The assessee imported plant & equipment for the manufacture of "Glazed Porcelain Tiles & Polished Tiles" from Hongkong - It filed bills of entry - On assessment, it was noticed that the amount declared by the assessee for value of goods was minus the discount - During proceedings the Adjudicating Authority held that discount cannot be allowed , however, the Commr. (A) observed that discount was only to the extent of 6% of the total value which does not seem to be abnormal and accepted the declared value - Hence the present appeal by Revenue.

Held - The assessee could get the discount after negotiation in the normal course of trade, which seems to be genuine and acceptable - In the quotations the discount is figuring and it is only after that the sales contract was finalized - Therefore, the transaction value is to be taken as the assessable value - Hence, the order challenged is upheld: CESTAT (Para 3, 4, 5) - Revenue's appeal dismissed : CHENNAI CESTAT