9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that whatever was exempted through a notification earlier was subsequently exempted through provision of law in the Finance Act. The allegations in the show cause notice were not sustainable - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No. ST/70699/2016-CU[DB] - ST/A/70038/2019-CU[DB] - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh (Deputy Commissioner) AR for Appellant Absent on Call for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar After rejecting the request for adjournment made by counsel for the respondent we have heard the learned AR Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the Revenue and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet 3.4 The Adjudicating Authority without going into the merit of the case dropped the entire Service Tax demand. 3.5 Thus, the Adjudicating Authority erred in by way of dropping the demand entirely without going into merit that after insertion of Section-66D of the Act, Services provided under the category of Work Contract to M/s UP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd, the party was required to pay service tax w.e.f. 01.07.2012. 3. We have perused the wording of Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010. The said Notification is reproduced below:- Exemption to services provided for transmission of electricity In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 and invoice No.013 dated 26.06.2008. I examined the said two invoices both the invoices are in favour of M/s Zesa Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Harare, Zimbabwe where job charges amounting to ₹ 22,90,901/- and ₹ 22,11,970/- respectively have been charged. I also examined the ledger account of Job Work (Export) for the year 2008-09 submitted by the Noticee. In the ledger amount of ₹ 22,09,901/- against invoice No.012 dated 26.06.2008 and ₹ 22,11,970/- against invoice No.013 dated 26.06.2008 have been shown credited. From the above I find that an the amount of ₹ 45,02,871/- received on account of ob charges is not taxable under service tax law being in the nature of export of service, I, therefore, find that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are on account of deductions made by the job work service receivers of the Noticee is without any basis and does not sustain. I, therefore, find that the said allegation merits to be dropped. 18.3 In view of the discussion made in paragraph 18.1 and 18.2 I hold that the demand of ₹ 30,58,745/- raised on the notice is not sustainable. 5. On perusal of finding by the learned Commissioner it is very clear that the allegations in the show cause notice were not sustainable. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Original. We, therefore, reject the appeal filed by Revenue. (Pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
