9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-9-2004 and there is no merit in the case of the department. - ST/858/2011-SM(BR) - 753/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 20-10-2011 - Shri Mathew John, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sidharth Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Jagdev, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Appellants are in the business of constructing buildings. A new levy was introduced with effect from 10-9-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application for waiver of dues for admission of the Appeal. 2. The ld. Counsel of the Appellants says that this payment received on 16-9-2004 is clearly in respect of work done prior to 10-9-2004 and is not taxable in view of the clarification issued by the Board vide letter No. 62/11/2003-S.T., dated 21-8-2003. Service tax was to be paid only for service rendered after imposition of levy. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt involved, I consider it proper to first waive the requirement of pre-deposit for admission of appeal and admit the appeal. Thereafter, I proceed to decide the Appeal itself. 5. I have considered arguments on both sides. Construction of shops were completed before 10-9-2003 and payment is received on 16th Sept. 2004 i.e. within six days from the levy. Prima facie this work of construction was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
