9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r capital goods or input services. We also find that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent had claimed or issued invoices for the actual material supplied for the services rendered by them; in this case, installation and commissioning service. In the absence of any evidence that the respondent had claimed dual benefit of Notification 1/2006-ST and Notification 12/03-ST, we find that the Revenue's appeal fails. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/227/10 –Mum, ST/CO/35/10 - Final Order Nos. A/1677-1678/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 3-6-2015 - M V Ravindran, Member (J) And P S Pruthi, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri K S Mishra, Addl. Comm (AR) For the Respondent : Shri K P Chaudhari, CA ORDER Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly resulted in the substantial confusion. As mentioned in the show cause notice itself that the assessee indicated the abatement value in the ST-3 return, failed to show the appropriate notification number. It was further alleged that the only abatement notification applicable to the service rendered by the assessee is 1/06 which is not available if Notification No.12/03 was availed. It is clear on examination of the sT-3 that no double benefit has been availed on the taxable value. The total taxable value was shown as ₹ 16,98,28,047/-. An amount of ₹ 11,37,84,792/- which constitutes 67% of the taxable value was claimed as abatement under Notification No. 12/03. The percentage of abatement (67%) along with the word abatement cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had availed benefit of Notification 1/2006-ST and benefit of Notification 12/03-ST. There is no supporting evidence to indicate that the respondent had availed benefit of Notification 12/03-ST. We find that the respondent has followed the condition laid down by Notification 1/2006-ST inasmuch as there is no allegation in the show-cause notice that they had availed Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods or input services. We also find that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent had claimed or issued invoices for the actual material supplied for the services rendered by them; in this case, installation and commissioning service. In the absence of any evidence that the respondent had claimed dual benefit of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
