TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the third work order was dated 17th June 2005 and amount of Rs.1,20,37,101/- was the gross amount against the services rendered by the applicant. Out of which Rs.86,28,180/- had been received by the applicant towards services rendered after 16th June 2005. Prima facie this amount is a taxable as the work order itself is after 16th June 2005. Therefore the applicant does not have a case for com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under Section 78 of the Act and also imposed penalty under Section 77 of the Act. The applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order. 3. The ld. Consultant appearing for the applicant submitted that the activity undertaken by the applicant is not covered under taxable service of site formation and clearance a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June 2005 but they have received the amount after June 2005 and the service was provided by them after 16th June 2005. He submits that third contract order was clearly dated 17th June 2005. Since the service was provided after 16.6.2005 and the payments were also received after 16.6.2005 they were liable to pay service tax. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that the site formation and cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
