9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue as to whether the appellant had erected only structures or major portion of the work done was structures is required to be examined by screening of the contracts entered into, relevant records and the evidences that may be produced by the appellants - The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case. It is made clear that - Appeal is allowed by way of remand in favour of Assessee. - ST/334/2009 - A/398/2012-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 5-3-2012 - Shri M.V. Ravindran and B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.M. Mondal, Consultant, for the Respondent. ORDER Appellant is engaged in prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ructures pre-fabricated or otherwise was included in the definition of service Erection, Commissioning or Installation service only w.e.f. 1-5-06. Therefore in respect of the earlier period, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax at all even if they had paid the same under wrong impression. Since the service tax itself was not liable to be paid if the claim made was correct, it was submitted that the demand for differential service tax and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Further, he submits that this claim has been rejected on the ground that even though the words structure, pre-fabricated or otherwise were added to the definition w.e.f. 1-5-06, the erection of structures was liable to service tax under the same serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this claim only on the ground that the inclusion of the words Erection of structures or otherwise w.e.f. 1-5-06 would not mean that the levy on structures is from 1-5-06 only seems to be unfair. If the appellant as claimed by the ld. Counsel had erected only mostly structures and was not liable to pay service tax at all, the denial of abatement and demanding of service tax on the full value would be unfair. Therefore on this ground at least it becomes necessary to consider whether the claim made by the appellants that they were not at all liable to pay service tax on the structures and therefore the demand for differential service tax is unfair is required to be considered. 4. Moreover as submitted by the ld. Counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
