9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ohn; The appellant is engaged in the business of construction of residential complex. During the period 1.8.2006 to 31.3.2009, they had not paid service tax on certain residential complexes based on the argument that the contractor who was doing the actual construction was paying service tax and the appellants were only the developer and they were not required to pay service tax. Revenue was of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd while confirming the demand such utilization has not been taken into account. He also submits that the demand is time-barred because the appellants had intimated the Department that they were stopping paying service tax based on clarification dated 1.8.2006 issued by CBEC advising developers need not pay service tax. 3. If the duplication of demand on account of CENVAT credit is taken note of, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service tax for admission of the appeal. 5. We have considered arguments on both sides. The contention regarding time-bar requires to be examined in detail at the time of final hearing. Prima facie, we are not convinced about the eligibility for CENVAT credit for tax claimed to have been paid by Sabari Constructions since the appellants have not produced any valid proof of such payment. Keepi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
