Page 169 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] RAJ ENGINEERING v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, UDAIPUR 255
10. From the arguments of the Appellant and also from the record and
also from the order under challenge, it is apparent that all the services have duly
been explained with the respective amount received qua the same. Hence, it can-
not be presumed that sufficient evidence would not have been provided by the
Appellant. Adjudicating authority has talked about going through the contract
which again corroborates absence of relevant evidence as has been taken a
ground for confirming the demand irrespective to a lesser extent than it was
proposed. We further observed that vide Para 19.3 of Order-in-Original (O-I-O),
Commissioner has denied the abatement of the value of services received for
maintenance and up-keeping of lawns & parks in Thermal Colony. The reason
for such denial given by the Commissioner is that the services are classifiable
under management, provision of abatement on account of providing these ser-
vices including pesticides, insecticides, manure and plants. Further, they have
not charged the separate value of these items in the contract. Furthermore, the
Learned Commissioner has observed that the appellant has declared these ser-
vices taxable as per their wishes; in some cases they have declared full taxable
value at the rate applicable, whereas in some cases, they have claimed abatement
without any legal backing. But from the documents on record we observe that he
Learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate the honesty of the appellant that
wherever the value of services were not inclusive of material used or consumed,
appellant declared the tax payable at full applicable rate (without abatement)
and where the value charged was inclusive of material used and consumed in
rendering the services, abatement was claimed. There is no doubt that the work
orders were for up-keeping of lawns & parks with material, i.e. supply of ma-
nures (goat difng/compost khad), pesticides, insecticides, flower pots in differ-
ent sizes, grass cutting machine, plastic pipes, plants etc. These are the items on
which no sales tax is payable, however, the Thermal Power Station deducted
TDS under Works Contract Tax (WCT) as per Sales Tax/VAT Rules, thus, the
abatement was claimed only on the value of services on which TDS under WCT
Rules was deducted. Copies of work orders etc. in relation to maintenance and
up-keeping of lawns & parks.
11. Further from Para 19.4 of O-I-O, it is observed that Commissioner
has denied abatement of 40% of the value of painting & while washing. We are of
the opinion that the work of painting & white washing was completed in Sept.,
2012 and the valuation of the work was to be done according to Notification No.
24/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Amendment in Service Tax (Determination of
Value) Rules, 2006], the Notification No. 24/2012-S.T. provides that :-
“Subject to the provisions of section 67, the value of service portion in the
execution of a works contract, referred to in clause (h) of section 66E of the
Act, shall be determined in the following manner, namely :-
(i) Value of service portion in the execution of a works contract
shall be equivalent to the gross amount charged for the works con-
tract less the value of property in goods transferred in the execution
of the said works contract.
Execution of the work contract shall determine the service tax pay-
able in the following manner, namely :-
In case of other works contracts, not covered under sub-clauses
(A) and (B), including maintenance, repair, completion and finish-
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  169