9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the ambit of the taxable service, we find no escape from the levy and collection of service tax, in the transactions of the petitioner which are the subject matter of the appeal - demand of service tax with interest to be deposited - stay granted towards penalty only. - ST/2549/2011-DB - Misc. Order No. 28251/2013 - Dated:- 19-12-2013 - G. Raghuram, President and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R. Gurunathan, Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and the learned AR for the respondent/Revenue. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate vide the order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service as works contract service, in view of the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzza)(ii)(e) of the Act. No other defence was asserted before the adjudicating authority on the aspect of classification. Prima facie and in the light of the judgment of this Tribunal in Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. v. CST, Hyderabad [2013 (29) S.T.R. 33 (Tri.-Bang.)], the classification concluded by the adjudicating authority is in conformity with the ratio of the Ramky judgment and in conformity with a primary analysis of the provisions of Section 65(25b) and Section 65(105)(zzzza), read in the light of the guidance on classification enjoined by Section 65A(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to an interim order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh High Court on 9-7-2012 does not elucidate a ratio to guide our discretion nor does it eclipse the ratio in the judgment of this Tribunal in Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. (supra). It is also brought to our notice that in an earlier interim order dated 4-12-2009 passed in the petitioner s own case in appeal No. S.T./441/2009 reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R. 906 (Tri.-Bang.), waiver of pre-deposit was granted. However, the interim order granted in the earlier Lanco Infratech Ltd. appeal is prior to the Final Order in Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. (supra). Thus, the prima facie assumptions underlined in the interim order are eclipsed by the ratio propounded in the Ramky Infrastructure judgment. 7. On the aforesaid analysis, since the appeal will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
