9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keeping in view the fact that out of the total demand of service tax of 74,88,396/- raised, the Tribunal itself has given benefit of 21,49,623/- and therefore, the penalty element also would not be payable. Similarly, keeping in view the fact that a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has prima facie held, in similar circumstances, that the mechanical process of removing fly ash does not fall within the ambit of service tax, the appellant is not liable to deposit 29,60,791/- on the said head along with the penalty which has been levied. - appeal was not liable to be dismissed on account of noncompliance of the earlier order dated 06.05.2013. Accordingly, the stay order dated 02.09.2013 (Annexure A-6) is set aside - Decided in favour of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that the services provided were taxable. The demand was on the basis of four different heads, which reads as under:- Sr. No. Category of Service Service Tax inclusive of Edu. Cess + SH Edu. Cess Remarks (i) "Cleaning Service" as defined under Section 65 (24b) 29,60,791/- Related to the activity of lifting of Ash from the Ash ponds of NFL (ii) "Management Maintenance or Repair Service as defined under Section 65(64) 21,94,110/- Related to repair of roads and petty civil contracts (iii) "Construction of Complex Service" as defined under Section 65(30a) i)21,49,623/- ii)1,34,681/- (i) Construction of dwelling units for Northern Railways at different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed the stay on similar grounds that the process of removing the fly ash by mechanical means would not amount to a cleaning service in the case of Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad Vs. Commissioner of C.EX, Haldia 2010 (20) STR 355. It was, accordingly, contended that the claim of ₹ 29,60,791/-, which had been raised on account of the cleaning service was not leviable and a prayer was made for reducing the amount of pre-deposit. The Tribunal has, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the application, in substance, is seeking review of the order dated 06.05.2013 and there is no power of review or rectification of an interlocutory order, under Section 25-F of the Act. Resultantly, the application as well as the appeal were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
