9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st - Held that: - It is clear that the said contracts fall under purview of taxable service of “works contract”. Since, the period involved in this case is prior to 01/06/2007 i.e. introduction of levy of service tax under “works contract service”, the activities undertaken by the appellant will not fall under such purview of taxable service for the purpose of levy of service tax - service tax dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. ORDER Per. S.K. Mohanty :- This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18/10/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs Central Excise, Jaipur. In this case, service tax demand has been confirmed holding that the services provided by the appellant during the period 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 were covered under the taxable category of erection, commissioning o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and commissioning. From the above observations, it is apparent that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted the fact that the contract entered into between the appellant with the contracting is a composite one involved in both supply of goods as well as for installation/commissioning of various equipments. We have also perused certain payment receipts produced by the appellants. The contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Thus, so far as payment of interest on delayed payment of service tax is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 4. In view of above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant so far as confirmation of demand of service tax for the period from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 holding that service tax was not leviable under the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
