9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said order has not taken into consideration the claim of abatement made by appellant and also the fact that they have been paying tax without fail under the category CRCS. - stay order modified - the amount of ₹ 1 crore paid by the appellant would suffice pre-deposit for the purpose of Section 35 F and we hereby grant waiver of the balance. - Decided partly in favor of applicant. - Application No.ST/MISC/30399/2016 in Appeal No.ST/22443/2014 - Misc. Order No. M/30070/2016 - Dated:- 27-5-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi ,C.S, Member(Judicial) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri Y.Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.K.Dass, AR for the Respondent ORDER The above application is filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for appellant, Shri Y.Sreenivasa Reddy submitted that the appellant is registered under CRCS and are paying service tax and filing returns regularly. As provided under Notificaiton No.1/2006-ST, they availed abatement of 67% from the gross value received till 01-07-2010 and 75% thereafter. The records were checked by department officers in 2007 and no objection was raised for the payment of Service Tax made under CRCS category. Later show cause notice was issued proposing demand of service tax on the entire value on the ground that services would fall under works contract services, and therefore, abatement cannot be claimed since appellants have not opted for composite scheme. It is submitted by the counsel that prior to 01-07-2010, they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Only because the department has classified it as works contract service, the present demand for differential duty has been made. It is also to be noted that they are not given the benefit of abatement even after remand of the case by the Tribunal. We are convinced that there is an error apparent on the face of record as the Tribunal in the said order has not taken into consideration the claim of abatement made by appellant and also the fact that they have been paying tax without fail under the category CRCS. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is deem fit to modify the quantum of pre-deposit ordered in stay order dated 17-12-2015. We hold that the amount of ₹ 1 crore paid by the appellant would suffice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
