The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad granted benefit of Abatement as there was exact proof for purchase of some raw materials however exact quantum of the same may not be ascertainable.
The appeal has been filed by M/s. Jay Gurudev Construciton Co. against demand of Service Tax, interest and imposition of penalty.
The issue involved is if the appellants, Jay Gurudev Construciton Co are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 15/2004- ST for the period from 2005-06 and 2007-08. It is noticed that the benefit has been denied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence of purchase of material in respect of which deduction has been claimed under Notification No. 15/2004-ST or 1/2006- ST.
The Commissioner observed that “However, from the copies of purchase bills and labour bills submitted by the appellant, it is noticed that the total ofpurchase bills comes to Rs.28,50,544/- and labour charges comes to 11,16,827/- and hence there is no corroboration between the bills and profit and loss account. Therefore, the appellant contention does not hold good on this count also and the impugned order of the Lower Authority does not warrant any interference.”
A Coram consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “It is apparent that the appellant has purchased of some raw materials however exact quantum of the same may not be ascertainable. Notification No. 15/2004-ST or for that matter 01/2006-ST, does not require proof of purchase of raw material to the extent of the abatement. “
“In these circumstances denying the benefit of these notifications, for the reason that the quantum of purchase shown profit and loss account does not match invoices produced by the appellant is improper and incorrect. In these circumstances we hold that the appellants are entitled to benefit of abatement under Notification No 15/2004- ST or 01/2006-ST as the case may be” the Tribunal ruled.
R. P Parekh, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appeared for the respondent whereas none appeared for the appellants.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
