9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicable rate which was the rate on the date of raising the bill when the services provided. Further submitted that assessee have provided the Chartered Accountant certificate certifying that the service tax liability has been discharged by sub-contractor and hence, set aside the demand - Do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. - ST/231/2010-SM - 1235/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 13-10-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Shri Anil Khanna, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Mukesh Mittal, C.A., for the Respondent. [Order]. - Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the lower Appellate Authority which has dropped the demand confirmed by the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that in this case, the lower appellate authority has not considered the issue in detail as the respondent has not submitted the copy of invoice and it is not coming out from the impugned order when the invoices were raised as the issue is what is the rate of service tax on the date of invoice. He further submitted that the respondent has to pay the service tax on the applicable rate at the time of realization of payments against the service provided by them. He further submitted that the respondent has failed to provide evidence whether the service tax has been paid to M/s. Thomas Associates or not. Hence he prays that impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instant case originally the demand amounting to Rs. 81,015/- was raised against the appellant which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 47,500/-. Out of which the reduction to the extent of Rs. 24,000/- was on account of service tax calculated at the rate of 8% whereas the same should have been 5%. In the instant case, I find that the plea taken up by the assessee with regard to clearances effect to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- on discharge of service tax at the rate of 5% are correct in as much as during 1-4-2003 to 14-5-2003, they have raised invoices to the extent of Rs. 9,00,000/- and therefore, difference of duty being (8-5 = 3%) should have been Rs. 27,000/- and not Rs. 24,000/- as contended by the Adjudicating officer. Also the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te clearly certifying that this job was accorded to the appellant as sub agent and that due service tax on the consolidated amount was discharged by M/s. Thomas Associates. Therefore, the demand on this account is not liable to be maintained against the appellant. In view of the above findings, I allow the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 7. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dealt with the issue by dropping the tax on the first issue for the applicable rate which was the rate on the date of raising the bill when the services provided. With regard to the second issue, he has gone through the Chartered Accountant Certificate and found that the service tax has been duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
