9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the aforesaid head as, according to them, they were not liable to pay service tax as main contractor prior to 10.9.2004 - It is their case that they were not liable to pay service tax on the amount received by them from M/s BHEL for erection inasmuch as erection was not a part of the service prior to 10.9.2004 - Appeal allowed by way of remand X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The appellate authority directed the appellant to pre-deposit the entire amount of service tax plus interest thereon. Instead of making the pre-deposit, the party moved an application for modification of the Appellate Commissioners stay order. That application was rejected by the appellate authority. Moreover, the appeal itself was dismissed for non-compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the period prior to 10.9.2004, it is the case of the appellant that the sub-contractor was only to erect the machinery preparatory to installation and commissioning and that the installation and commissioning were to be done by the main contractor (M/s BHEL). It is their case that they were not liable to pay service tax on the amount received by them from M/s BHEL for erection inasmuch as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the erection part of the work covered by the contract is certainly debatable. We are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and waiver of pre-deposit for the period prior to 10.9.2004. Now that the appellant has paid the service tax for the period from 10.9.2004, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should take up their appeal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
