TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant claimed the benefit of Notification No.21/05-ST dated 7/6/05 – Held that:- applicants are also undertaking the activity in respect of other goods also such as petrdidish, dental powder, medical equipments, semi-conductors, irradiation of O ring, LDPE Gaskets etc and these items are not covered under the Notification No.21/05-ST. Applicant has not made out a total waiver of demand Regarding laying of cables – Held that:- contracts are for laying the cables and the Board vide Circular dated 24/5/10 clarified that laying of cables are not liable to service tax. In favor of assessee - Service Tax Appeal No.192/2008 - S-381/KOL/2011 - Dated:- 16-11-2011 - S S Kang , S K Gaule, JJ. For Appellant: Shri A D Ray, Adv. For Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, the definition is amended to the effect that business auxiliary service means production of goods for, or on behalf of the client. In view of this amendment, the applicants are liable to pay service tax with effect from 16/06/2005 in respect of business auxiliary service undertaken by them. It is also submitted that the applicants are undertaking processing in respect of gems and diamonds which is exempt from service tax by Notification No.21/05-ST dated 7/6/05. In respect of the demand of Rs.22,85,484/-, the contention is that applicants undertaken the activity of laying the cables and as per Board Circular No.123/05-10 TRU dated 24/5/10 whereby it has been clarified that activity of laying the cable is not taxable under the Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above decision is overruled by the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. BSBK Pvt Ltd - 2010 (253) ELT 522 (Tri. LB) . 7. The Revenue also relied upon the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur Vs. Shri Chaitanya Educational Committee - 2011 (22) STR 135 (A.P) whereby the Hon'ble High Court laid the principles to be taken into consideration while deciding the stay or dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. 8. We find that the demand of Rs.3,57,801/- is confirmed after denying the credit in respect of the service tax paid on outward transportation. During arguments a specific query is made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicants are also undertaking the activity in respect of other goods also such as petrdidish, dental powder, medical equipments, semi-conductors, irradiation of O ring, LDPE Gaskets etc and these items are not covered under the Notification No.21/05-ST. In these circumstances, we find that the applicant has not made out a total waiver of demand in this regard. 10. In respect of the demand of Rs.22,85,484/- which is confirmed by treating the activity undertaken by applicant as erection and commission. We have gone through the contracts. The contracts are for laying the cables and the Board vide Circular dated 24/5/10 clarified that laying of cables are not liable to service tax. No doubt, this plea was not taken before the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
