9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5,82,46,674/- have confirmed demand of Rs. 2,00,02,630/- under the category 'works contract' alongwith appropriation of Rs. 1,41,49,548/- which was deposited prior to the issue of SCN and as per the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant-assesse, and further imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 alongwith penalty under Section 77(1) and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant-assessee points out from the show cause notice that it is admitted fact that the appellant-assessee is engaged in works contract service which includes also some repair and maintenance work particularly of transformers. They are also engaged in a small manner in rent-a-cab service and manpower supply service. From the Table 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gross amount with respect to the work done in the nature of 'works contract' for Purvanchal Nigam Ltd and UP Power Corporation Ltd., and also the work for repair and maintenance of transformers. He further states that according to the appellant-assessee the service tax admitted and payable shall be as follows: - S. No. Particulars (2) Gross Amount (3) Abatement (4) Net Amount Taxable (5) Rate of Tax (6) Service Tax (7) 1. Works Contract for Purvanchal Nigam Ltd. & UP Power Corporation Ltd. Works Contract for repair and 132,597,380 @ 30% 37,079,214 @ 30% 86,518,166 12.36% 10,693,645 2. maintenance of transformer 37,289,312 11,186,794 26,102,518 12.36% 3,226,271 3. Rent-a-cab 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opping of demand of service tax raised in the SCN prior to 01 July, 2012 alongwith penalty. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 7. Having considered the rival contentions we find no merits in the appeal of Revenue as the learned Commissioner have rightly allowed deduction for work relating to laying of underground cables under or alongside the road, following Notification No. 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24 May, 2010. 8. So far the appeal of the appellant-assessee is concerned. We find that the learned Commissioner have erred in not allowing the abatement is provided in Rule 2A Clause (ii) (A) which provides - where the value has not been determined under Clause (i), the person liable to pay tax on the taxable service involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
