9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orks contract' as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 and that they were liable to pay service tax on the gross amount collected from their client - keeping in view the case Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CCE[2010 (5) TMI 337 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Held that waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery are allowed in respect of the amounts adjudged against the appellants - similar cases which were heard by this Bench have been reopened for fresh hearing - ST/918 to 922/2011 - 934 to 938/2011 - Dated:- 4-10-2011 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Shri M. Veeraiyan, JJ. Represented by: Mr. G. Natarajan and Mr. K.S. Ramesh, Advocates for Appellants Mr. R.K. Singla, JCDR for Respondent Per: P G Chacko: These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 and that they were liable to pay service tax on the gross amount collected from their client (Government of Andhra Pradesh). In some cases, the show-cause notices invoked the extended period of limitation for recovery of service tax for the extended period. These notices also demanded interest on tax, apart from proposing penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. These proposals, demands etc. were contested. In separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner in adjudication of the show-cause notices, the demands were confirmed against the JVs and penalties were imposed on them. 2.1. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has made two-fold submissions on merits. His first contention is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Government, It is argued that, without passage of the property from the JV to the Government, the former cannot be held to be providers of 'works contract service'. 2.2. Ld. Counsel has also referred to some of the specimen work orders in his endeavor to show that the works undertaken as per these orders did not constitute works contract for purposes of Section 65(105)(zzzza). Ld. Counsel has also claimed support from the Board's Circular No.123/5/2010-TRU, dt. 24/5/2010 wherein the definition of 'works contract' was clarified as under:- (iii) 'Works Contract' incorporates the inclusions and exclusions of the aforementioned two taxable services (amongst others) and it is the nature of the contract (i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent purpose, the precedent cited by the Counsel can be followed. We have perused the stay orders cited by him and have found that waiver and stay were granted on similar facts in favour of those parties. Prima facie, the Board's clarification works in favour of the present appellants. In this view of the matter, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery are allowed in respect of the amounts adjudged against the appellants. 5. At this stage, we are told that similar cases which were heard by this Bench have been reopened for fresh hearing and the same need to be listed. The present set of appeals also can be heard with those cases. The pending cases are ST/441 and 476/2009, ST/425, 1321 and 1850/2010, ST/229, 230, 326-328 and 899/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
