2018 (6) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : V. Padmanabhan: The present appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 266(VC)ST/JPR-I/2013 dated 22.10.2013. 2. The dispute pertains to two work orders executed by the appellant for the Jaipur Development Authority during the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. The activity relates to finishing work (wood and metal joinery & carpentry) relating to Automatic sliding door at Rajasthan State Co-operative .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Contract Services are liable to payment of service tax only w.e.f. 01.06.2007. She submitted that one of the two work orders was executed prior to 01.06.2007 and hence will not be liable for service tax under the category of CICS. 5. Countering the argument, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue justified the impugned order. He drew our attention to the nature of the work orders discussed by the Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot appear to include supply of material alongwith service and as such do not merit classification under the 'Works Contract Service'. 7. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is sustained for the reasons mentioned therein.. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
Case laws, Decisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X