9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of quantum of materials supplied has been made. The appellant's claim based on the written contract, as agreed upon by the recipient of services, has been rejected without valid grounds. We further find that the appellants submitted that the supply of materials in terms of the work order always exceeds 80% to the total value. It was further asserted that this can be established from their accounts and the bills raised to the recipient of service. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 55203/2013(DB) - 55976/2016 - Dated:- 14-12-2016 - Shri S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Batra, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Neha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntenance and repair service is not legally tenable in view of the retrospective amendment carried out vide Finance Act, 2012 (Section 98), which excluded non-commercial Government building from the purview of the tax liability. 3. Ld. AR contested the submissions of the appellant. She drew our attention to the contents of the work order and the findings thereafter. It is her contention that such bifurcation 80% to 20% cannot be validly accepted for charging service tax in absence of actually supply of materials. In fact the Original Authority has recorded that the supply of materials was to the effect of only 12% and value of service was 88%. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The only dispute in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order on the ground that the appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the original orders. We find that one such order had reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.54773/2016 dated 2.11.2016 upheld the findings of the lower authority regarding the correctness of discharge of service tax liability by the appellant. We note that almost similar set of facts were the subject matter of discussion. In the said order, Tribunal observed that the denial of material portion was on bland allegation without any documentary evidence. If the Revenue has alleged artificial bifurcation, it is for them to substantiate the allegations by producing sufficient documentary evidence. We note that in the present case, on similar set of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
