9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication ibid. - demand do not sustain. Benefit of Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 - prior intimation of such option as per Rule 3 to the department not filed - HELD THAT:- In the above stated case it was held that it is only a procedural one and that the substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapse - demand do not sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.40492/2013, 40948/2013 - FINAL ORDER No. 40834-40835/2019 - Dated:- 12-6-2019 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI, C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri Ms.Marry Jossy, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, AD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts. It is very much clear from the facts that the appellants had entered into different contracts with separate agencies. The very same issue has been analyzed in the appellant s own case cited supra. The Tribunal held as under:- 7.1 In respect of supply contracts and the erection and commissioning contracts, practically there are no disputes. In the former no service tax is payable and in the latter, tax stands paid at full rate without abatement. The dispute centres around the contracts for civil works which admittedly involve the materials viz., cement and steel. The adjudicating authority has gone by the classification as declared by the appellant in their ST-3 returns under 65 (105) (zzd) which covers the erection, com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, we are of the view that the said allegation or the demand on this count cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 6.1 The second allegation is that the appellant cannot opt to pay service tax under the composition scheme for the reason that they have failed to file intimation prior to payment of service tax under the composition scheme for works contract service. In Vaishno Associates (supra), the Tribunal has considered the said issue and held that it is only a procedural one and that the substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapse. Following the said decision, we are of the view that the demand on this count also cannot sustain. 4. As this Bench has already ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
