TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsed that clarification in the year 2007 vide circular dated 23.08.2007. However, prior to 23.08.2007, the appellants certainly had a ground not to pay the service tax as sub-contractors in view of the then prevailing clarification of the Board and therefore the extended period with regard thereto is prima facie not invokable making that component of demand time barred as the Show Cause Notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Jain, DR ORDER Per: R K Singh: The Stay Application along with Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 77(VC)ST/JPR-l/2013 dated 28.07.2013, which upholds the Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2011 in terms of which service tax demand of ₹ 32,84,750/- for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 was confirmed (along with interest and penalties) under the category of Commercial or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e service rendered by them and from then onwards they paid the service tax even as sub-contractors. They stated that the substantial part of demand is also time barred as there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts and that part of the contract was for construction of community centre, which cannot be covered under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction service. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year 2007 vide circular dated 23.08.2007. However, prior to 23.08.2007, the appellants certainly had a ground not to pay the service tax as sub-contractors in view of the then prevailing clarification of the Board and therefore the extended period with regard thereto is prima facie not invokable making that component of demand time barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.10.2010. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
