TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within the meaning of this terms as defined is Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act - benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. would not be available - ST/129/2011-Cus - ST/688/2011(PB) - Dated:- 13-9-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.K. Sarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.K. Jaiswal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The period of dispute in this case is from 1-10-2006 to 31-3-2007 and 1-4-2007 to 31-9-2007. The dispute is in respect of completion and finishing services provided by the appellant. During this period in respect of completion and finishing services provided by the appellant to their clients, the appellants paid service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue was of the goods used on which VAT has been paid, that, thus, in respect of the period w.e.f. 1-6-2007 the service tax was payable on the 20% of the gross amount received while the appellant have paid service tax on 33% of the gross amount received, that as regards the period prior to 1-6-2007, even if 67% abatement under the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006 is denied, the department cannot deny the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. under which no service tax is chargeable on the value of the material sold, that since about 80% of the amount received is for materials used for providing services on which VAT has been paid, the material used on which VAT has been paid has to be treated as material sold and the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in the case of C.C.E., Raipur v. BSBK reported in 2010 (18) S.T.R. 555 (Tri.-LB.) = 2010 (253) E.L.T. 522 (Tri.-LB) and that in view of this, this is not a case for total waiver. 5. We have carefully considered the submission from both the sides and perused the record. The period of dispute in this case is from October, 2006 to 31-9-2007. The activity of the appellant is completion and finishing services in respect of the Construction of Industrial Complexes and this fact is clear from the perusal of their contract and has not been denied by them. Since there is clear provisions in the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. that 67% abatement would not be available in respect of completion and finishing services and since the activities of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
