9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts, the copies of which now submitted by the Ld. Advocate, in confirming the demand against the appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to analyse each and every contract under which Commercial or Industrial Construction Service has been rendered during the relevant period and the admissibility of the quantum of abatement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Finance Act, 1994. Alleging that the appellant had failed to discharge service tax correctly and wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, the show cause notice was issued them for recovery of the service tax of ₹ 2,01,39,096/- short paid during the relevant period from April 2006 to March 2008. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er availing the abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. It is his contention that there would not be any short payment of service tax as alleged if all the contracts are analysed and the exemption notification applied in arriving at the liability of service tax on the appellant during the said period. He submits that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich they provided taxable services under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' during the relevant period and discharged service tax by availing abatement of 67% of the gross taxable value in accordance with Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. Revenue's grievance on the other hand is that the contracts placed before this Tribunal had not been earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
