9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 370 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. Therefore, the demand pertains to the contract receipts of ₹ 4,43,70,778/- for which service tax works out to ₹ 51,31,929/-.. Prima facie, the demand is not sustainable. For the rest of the demands, the applicant, prima facie, entitled for 67% abatement. In these circumstances, the demand pertains to Delhi jurisdiction is worked out to ₹ 5,62,18,873/-. The applicant is entitled for 67% abatement on the amount. - Partial stay granted. - Application No.ST/Stay/58841/2013-CU[DB], Appeal No.ST/58210/2013-CU[DB] - - - Dated:- 10-2-2015 - Ashok Jindal , Member (J) And R K Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri A K Batra, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction of the Delhi commissionerate. Therefore, for those amounts received, service tax is not payable as the applicant is discharging service tax liability with those jurisdictions. To support his contentions, he produced the registration certificates and challans of demand of service tax thereon. He further submits that the activity of ECIS, the main component is DG set supplied by them and on the goods supplied, they are discharging VAT for that they are not liable to pay service tax. In fact, they are liable to pay service tax on labour component, otherwise, they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST, dated 20.06.2003, wherein the value of goods supplied is to be deducted from the gross value of services provided. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the view that the jurisdictional commissioner, who passed the impugned order is having the jurisdiction only for the office registered in Delhi. For the other locations, Faridabad, Noida and Alwar, the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the demands pertain to those jurisdiction are not sustainable as held by this Tribunal in the case of Tina Sales Agecy Vs. CCE (Prev.), Mumbai [2014 (307) ELT 551 (Tri. - Mumbai)] and in the case of Vihar Aahar Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2013 (32) STR 563 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]. Therefore, the demand pertains to the contract receipts of ₹ 4,43,70,778/- for which service tax works out to ₹ 51,31,929/-.. Prima facie, the demand is not sustainable. For the rest of the demands, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
