TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment relating to the ongoing projects. Gross amount received in the month of August, was ₹1,93,77,870 and the amount of service tax payable on the same worked out to be ₹20,51,672 - for the month of September, 2007, there are no details in the Notice of the amount received as on 10-9-2007 and the corresponding service tax short paid. No financial hardship was pleaded - Conditional stay granted. - ST/A/183/2010 - Stay Order No. S-1030/KOL/2012 - Dated:- 12-9-2012 - Shri S.K. Gaule, Member (T) and Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) Shri A.R. Madhava Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Misra, (Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER This is an Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industrial construction services, but they had not rendered any service under the said category and accordingly, no service tax was paid by them. Further, he has submitted that after levy of service tax on works contract , the Applicant exercised their option under the Works Contract Rules. Learned Advocate further submitted that the Applicant were entitled to the benefit of the said Scheme, as they satisfied all the conditions prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the said Rules. He has submitted that as per the said sub-rule, they exercised their option on various ongoing projects which were in the nature of works contract and the option was exercised by them on 12-7-2007 prior to payment of service tax in respect of these projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax Levy. 4. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. Further, he has submitted that the option exercised through their letter dated 12-7-2007 had been received by the Department on 10-9-2007. Further, he has disputed about the receipt of the said letter by the Department, as the said letter does not contain the necessary details of the acknowledgement by the concerned officers and needs to be verified from the Jurisdictional Commissionerate. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the benefit of concessional rate of service tax @ 2% available under the Works Contract Rules, was denied on the ground that the Appellant had not exercised their option, as required under sub-rule (3) of Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f August, was ₹ 1,93,77,870/- and the amount of service tax payable on the same worked out to be ₹ 20,51,672/-. We find that for the month of September, 2007, there are no details in the Notice of the amount received as on 10-9-2007 and the corresponding service tax short paid. No financial hardship was pleaded. In these circumstances, we direct the Applicant to deposit an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/-(Rupees twenty lakh) within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Order and report compliance on 20-11-2012. On deposit of the said amount, the balance amount of service tax and penalty would stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the Appeal. Failure to comply with the above direction would result in dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
