9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ober, 2004 to March, 2008, the Appellant had rendered services to M/s. NTPC against three contracts. Broadly, the said contracts relate to supply of imported/indigenous material and supply of services. It is his submission that the supply of services, could also be bifurcated, namely, installation and commissioning services and civil construction services. He submits that on the basis of a letter dated 23.11.2011 by M/s. NTPC during the course of adjudication proceeding, copy of which was not handed over to them, the Ld. Commissioner had concluded that the entire amount of Rs.52,15,40,000/- related to installation services only and there were no civil construction services rendered by the Applicant to M/s.NTPC. Consequently the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with installation service. The Ld.Sr.Advocate further submitted that only in one ST-3 return filed by their Pune office, wherein, they have not reflected payment of Service Tax categorywise, but a consolidated payment has been made. He submits that later they have furnished a Chartered Accountants certificate, whereby, the detailed bifurcation of services on account of civil construction as well as installation service were mentioned. 5. Per contra, the Ld.A.R. for the Revenue submits that in the award letter dated 29.03.2004 it has been specifically mentioned at para 4 that the entire value of services relates to installation services only. It is his submission that the ld.adjudicating authority sought clarification from M/s.NTPC as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Rs.20.00 Lakhs. He has offered to deposit the said Rs.20.00 Lakhs for the present purposes without prejudice to his right to claim the said amount in the event he could establish before the ld.adjudicating authority on its deductibility from the gross taxable value. 7. After hearing both sides we find that the Appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides we take up the Appeal for final disposal. 8. We find that the issue involved in the present case relates to admissibility of abatement from the gross taxable value received by the Appellant on account of rendering services to M/s.NTPC. The dispute lies on the fact that the Appellant had claimed that they had rendered both 'installation & c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
