9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion that the appellant should be given a proper opportunity to file detailed submissions along with documents as reply to SCN, which he omitted to do earlier and also an opportunity of personal hearing. In such circumstances, it is deem fit that the impugned order with regard to demand of WCS be set aside, and matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication, which we hereby do. It is however made clear that we do not interfere with the demand of ₹ 1,10,485/- along with interest thereon relating to the Management Consultancy services which is confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Appeal disposed off - matter remanded. - Appeal No. ST/28441/2013 and Application No. ST/STAY/29144/2013 - ORDER No. A/308 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th regard to the Management Consultancy services. Therefore in this appeal we confine our discussions with regard to WCS only. 3. The Ld Counsel submitted that non-payment was only due to bonafide belief that work in respect of canals are not liable to tax. In respect of WCS contract mentioned in 5 (a) of the impugned order even if liable to service tax, the amount demanded is unsustainable due to denial of composition scheme to the appellant by the adjudicating authority. He pointed out that Notn. No. 32/2007 dated 25.05.2007 viz; Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 extends option to discharge service tax liability on WCS by paying an amount equivalent to 2% of the gross amount charged for the work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its entirety. 5. Ld. AR vehemently reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and submitted that the appellants would be governed by composition scheme as per amendment brought about in Rules vide notification dated 07.07.2009. 6. Heard both sides. 7. After hearing the submissions and going through the records, we do find that the contentions put forth by the Ld. Counsel for appellant do have merit. In the first place, the amended provisions of the Rules clarify that the new provisions shall not apply to a Works Contract which had commenced or payment made thereof on or before 07.07.2009. In the instant case, Works Order related to para 5(a) of Order-in-Original was obtained by appellant on 15.11.2008, hence unless it is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
