9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T dated 10.09.2004 and Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - Demand of interest - Receipt of advance - Held that:- during the relevant period the rate to tax applicable was rate of tax prevailing on the date of providing the service. Therefore, before the service was provided the appellants would have been in no position to know as to at what rate to pay the service tax. The service tax was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the service tax was to be paid would not be known, it is not possible difficult to sustain the order with regard to confirmation of the impugned interest. - Following decision of M/s Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect because the said benefit was not available to them as they had not included the cost of materials used by them in providing the said taxable service. In this regard the appellants have contended that during the relevant period the definition of gross amount charged given in the said Notification is clearly ultra vires Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 which has no provision to include the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable was rate of tax prevailing on the date of providing the service. Therefore, before the service was provided the appellants would have been in no position to know as to at what rate to pay the service tax. The service tax was paid as and when the service relating to advance received was rendered. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the order relating to recovery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
