9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case are that the appellant was engaged in providing taxable services of Construction Services in respect of Commercial or Industrial Building and Civil Structure and was registered with the department under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 as amended. The appellant was discharging service tax liability on construction services after taking 67% abatement in terms of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. During the investigations by the department apart from other detections, it was also found that w.e.f. July, 2012, the appellant was not eligible for abatement at the rate 67% and the appellant was eligible for abatement at the rate 60%; hence, the appellant has short paid the differential service tax of Rs.1,22,563/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side. For this submission, he relies on the following decisions: * CCE, Bolpur vs. Unnayak Prop - 2009 (243) ELT 212 (Tri. Kolkata) * Shirish Harshavadan Shah vs. Deputy Director E.D., Mumbai - 2010 (254) ELT 259 (Bom.) 4.3 He further submits that the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions specified in Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 and it is not disputed by the department. As per the said notification, a service provider providing taxable service in relation to commercial or industrial constructions service to any person has the option to avail abatement in service tax upto 67% and pay only service tax on 33% of the gross amount charged from any person by such service provider for providing such taxable service, prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject to the fulfillment of the conditions enshrined therein. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that as per the composition scheme cited supra, the assessee can only claim abatement to the tune of 60% and is required to pay service tax on 40% of the gross amount charged, whereas in the present case, the appellant has availed abatement to the tune of 67% and therefore is liable to differential duty. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in this case, the period of dispute 2008-09 to 2010-11 and show cause notice was issued on 16.10.2014 whereas the Order-in-Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
