9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 53058/2014 - Final order No.52863/2017 - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - Hon ble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri A.K. Batra, CA Ms. Sakshi, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 28.02.2014 of the Commissioner (Adj.), Service Tax, New Delhi. The appellants are engaged in providing management, maintenance and repair services and are liable to service tax under the terms of Section 65(105)(zzg) read with Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is with refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds goods and 20% towards service. The impugned order is correct to hold that such is the artificial split up of consideration is to avoid due discharge of service tax by availing notification no.12/2003, improperly. The appellant should have supported the abatement under notification by a clear supporting evidence for actual value of materials supplied. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We note that the identical set of facts in respect of other contractors, who entered into a contract with the same client (Delhi Jal Board, CPWD, etc.), have been subject matter of decision by the Tribunal in the above referred decisions by the ld. Consultant. In the case of Gogia Brothers (supra), the Tribunal observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said findings were not accepted in the impugned 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 not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
