Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Airef Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Adjudication) Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi

2016 (2) TMI 315 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Wavier of pre-deposit - Demand of service tax on advance received as per the balance sheet - Rate of composition tax on works contract - The appellant has contended that (i) It opted for Composition scheme for Works Contract Services when the rate of tax was 2%, and therefore the same rate should continue for the entire period of the contract - Held that:- While the demands under Show cause dated 21/10/2012 and 19/10/2012 are prima facie not barred by time limit, the appellant has raised the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted partly. - Service Tax Stay Application No. 61540/2013 And 50461/2014 of Service Tax Appeal No. ST/60458/2013 And 50357/2014 - Dated:- 22-12-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri P K Sahu, Adv For the Respondent Rep by: Shri Rajeev Gupta, DR ORDER Per R K Singh Stay applications along with appeals have been filed in respect of Commissioner's Order confirming the following demands under Works Contract service: Appeal No. SCN Date Period of Dispute .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant's own case vide order no. 73/ST/DLH/2011 dated 9/3/2011 (ii) No service tax was payable as on works contracts before 1.6.2007 as has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. & Ans. - 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST (iii) The demand has been inflated by an amount of ₹ 29.68 crores as the advances received and shown in the balance sheet were adjusted in the amounts received for rendition of service, (iv) In view of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

about 18.55 crores out of an amount of ₹ 15.77 crores has been paid. 3. Ld. DR on the other hand contented that (i) the order-in-appeal referred to by the appellant rejected its refund claim which means that the said order-in-appeal had a typographical error with regard to the applicability of 2% rate under composition scheme for the entire period of contract. (ii) The demand for the period 2008-2009 under show cause notice dated 21/12/2009 is within the period of one year as the ST-3 retu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version