TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the work also. In view of the fact that the appellant had not executed the work and demand has been raised against the contractor who did the work, we consider that the appellant has made out a case for waiver - Stay granted. Works contract service - Held that:- unless the procedure as prescribed under the relevant rules is followed, according to which the appellant was required to opt for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion service amounting to ₹ 77,83,916/- and in respect of erection commissioning or installation services for ₹ 1,34,93,000/-, we find that the appellant had sub-contracted the entire contract on a back-to-back basis to another contractor who executed the work and demand has been raised against the contractor who executed the work also. In view of the fact that the appellant had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey cannot avail the benefit. Under these circumstances, the claim for composition scheme may not be admissible to appellants at all. Hence, we find that appellant has not made out a case for waiver in respect of this amount. No financial difficulty has been pleaded. In view of the above position, the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs only) with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
