9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority and accordingly not considered – the principal contractor has categorically stated that they have discharged the service tax against five projects allotted to the present appellant - these facts need verification – The Appellant are directed to deposit amount as pre-deposit – the case remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration of their alternate plea of eligibility of Notification No.12/2003 and also the claim that Service Tax paid by their principal contractor – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Appeal No. 482/2011 - ORDER NO.S-571/A-234/KOL/13 - Dated:- 31-7-2013 - DR.D.M. MISRA AND DR. I.P. LAL, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant For the Respondent : Sri A.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t an amount of Rs.6.99 Lakhs has already been paid by them as Service Tax. The Ld. Consultant further submitted that even if the Department is of the view that they are not entitled to the exemption Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1/3/2006,alternatively the benefit of notification No. 12/03-ST dated 20/6/2003 as amended, be admissible to them.In support, he has referred to the case law of Agrim Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Service Tax, New Delhi reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R. 30 (Tri.-Del).He has made a fair offer to deposit Rs.4,32,345/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five only) which according to the applicant is payable. 3. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has not disputed the fact that the principal contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, we find that the said services are rightly held by the Ld. Commissioner as finishing services and accordingly fall outside the purview of the said notification No. 1/2006-ST dated-1/3/2006. The alternative plea of the appellant, however is that they have paid VAT on the materials supplied in rendering the said service and the value of the material should be excluded from the total value of the services in view of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20/6/2003. It is fairly accepted that this plea has not been made before the adjudicating authority and accordingly not considered. We find that this Tribunal in similar circumstances has remanded the case to the lower authority to consider the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
