9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in submitting that the amount of more than ₹ 3.22 crores deposited by them would be sufficient to discharge the entire service tax liability arising for the period up to September 2009 in respect of all these projects. However he was not able to produce a worksheet to support this claim. Since considerable time was spent in hearing the matter, it was felt that it may not be worthwhile adjourning the matter only for this purpose and therefore if the appellants are required to deposit some additional amount, that can be considered as sufficient for pre-deposit to hear the matter. - Conditional stay granted. - ST/20285/2014-DB - MISC ORDER No. 21441/2014 - Dated:- 24-6-2014 - SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY AND SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JJ. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Infrastructure Ltd. is against the assessee. The learned advocate fairly conceded this fact. 2.2. Further he submitted that in this case show-cause notice was issued in 2012 and for the period subsequent to October 2009, the appellant did not get the benefit of exemption notification and therefore there may not be any demand for duty. As regards the period prior to October 2009, he would submit that even prior to 01.06.2007, the appellant was paying service tax in respect of erection, commissioning or installation service. They were excluding the value of the goods supplied and had also vivisected the composite contracts and were paying tax only on the activity which was liable to tax. They continued the practice even after 01.06.2007. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at when these two circulars are considered, it would clearly show that appellants were definitely entitled to entertain a bona fide belief that they were not required to pay any additional tax and they were not required to change the practice being followed by them. When the Board itself clarified in 2008 that classification cannot be changed and in September 2009 clarified that in respect of canal systems no need to pay tax, appellants cannot be found fault with if they entertain a bona fide belief regarding the correctness of the stand taken by them. We find prima facie case in favour of the assessee. 3. Where projects were started after 01.06.2007, in respect of these projects at least, in our opinion, prima facie the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
