9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -6-2007. The definition of CICS was not modified when works contract services were brought under tax net - Therefore, prima facie, the demand and penalties were wrongly found to be due from URC. Stay Granted - S/284 OF 2008 - 97 OF 2009 - Dated:- 11-2-2009 - MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT AND P. KARTHIKEYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER K.S. Ravishankar and Navin Kumar for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in paying the tax under section 76 of the Act. 2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner had found that the applicant registered with the department as provider, of 'commercial or industrial construction services' (CICS) failed to pay tax on such services involved in construction of civil structures/buildings for the following departments in the Government of India/Government of India U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds reiterated by their ld. Counsel at the time of hearing. 4. Tax liability under the head 'CICS' was attracted only in cases where a person had engaged in construction of new building or civil structure or part thereof, which was used or occupied, or engaged primarily in commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, which did not include roads, airports, railways, trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-2007. As the appellants had undertaken the impugned taxable services on "turnkey contracts", and such activity became taxable for the first time under works contract services with effect from 1-6-2007, demand for the same activity under a different head for an earlier period was not sustainable. The impugned demand and penalties deserved to be vacated. 5. We have also heard ld. JCDR who defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
