9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Superintendent(AR) for the Respondent ORDER This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original No.12/2010 dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-II, Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing taxable services under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived and Rs.58,34,404/- relates to non-payment of service tax on cost of materials supplied free by the customers and used in the provision of taxable service. He submits that during the relevant period, the appellant had rendered services which included both material and services; therefore the service was in the nature of 'works contract' and not leviable to service tax. Also, on the issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invocation of extended period is not justified. Further he submits that levy of service tax on 'works contract' service has been brought into force w.e.f. 01.06.2007; therefore, no service tax is leviable at the time rendering the said service prior to 01.06.2007 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE&C Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & others [2015(8) TMI 749 - Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax on the advances received during the period in question at the time of settling the final bills, which the learned Commissioner has recorded in the impugned order. As far as the remaining demand of Rs.58,34,404/- is concerned, we find that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST, Delhi & Ors Vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. & Ors. (supra). Also, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
