9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority for clearly bringing out the issues for deliberations and whether the services provided by them also satisfy the definition of ‘works contract’ services for non-levy of Service Tax - matter remanded back for fresh decision - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/11107,11108/2014-DB - Order No. A/11402-11403/2014 - Dated:- 17-7-2014 - MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN AND MR. H.K. THAKUR, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vipul Khandhar, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Mall, Addl.Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: H.K. Thakur; 1. These stay applications and appeals have been filed by the appellants with respect to OIA No.AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-368 to 369-13-14, dt.25.02.2014. 2. Brie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and paid Service Tax on 33% of the total value, which did not appear to be admissible to the Revenue as according to Revenue appellant neither supplied nor installed any plant, machinery or equipment or structure. Two show cause notices dt.5.10.2012 and 2.4.2013 were issued to the appellant. Adjudicating authority while deciding the issues under OIO No.05-06/STC/AHD/ADC (ISN)/2013-14, dt.31.5.2013, framed three issues regarding demand of Service Tax on following three categories:- (a) Railway work Electrification under Railway Ministry . (Appellant claimed benefit of CBEC Circular No.123/5/2010-TRU, dt.24.5.10) (b) ESIC Hospital Construction of Gujarat Government. (Appellant claimed the benefit of CBEC Circular No.80/10/2004-ST, dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and perused the case records. As the issues involved in these appeals lie in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay applications the appeals themselves are taken up for disposal. Ld.CA appearing on behalf of the appellant now argues that the services provided by the appellant are works contract services where transfer of property is also involved. In Para 3.2.4 of the grounds of appeal memorandum, appellant is also referring to some electrification work of ISRO which was not the subject matter of deliberations before the lower authorities. Whether the services provided by the appellant could also be classified as works contract service was also not agitated before the lower authorities. The issues involved in these appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
