TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Petitioner to service tax by wrongly classifying it as ‘construction service’, has not been taken note of by the CESTAT - Held that:- in a similar appeal before this Court by an entity of the Appellant Group, this Court by an order reported in [2015 (10) TMI 2484 - DELHI HIGH COURT] noted a similar contention and remanded the matter to the CESTAT for consideration of the Appellant’s applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1.75 crores as pre-deposit and report compliance by 20th January, 2016. 2. At the outset, it is pointed out by the counsel for the Appellant that in the impugned order the CESTAT has set out only two contentions of the Appellant. The CESTAT has, however, not noted that inasmuch as the service tax demand is for a period subsequent to 2007 the demand under the head construction servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the works contract and the value of the services rendered for the purposes of service tax. 3. The Court notices that in a similar appeal before this Court by an entity of the Appellant Group, this Court by an order dated 12th October, 2015 in Service Tax Appeal No.1/2015 noted a similar contention and remanded the matter to the CESTAT for consideration of the Appellant s application for wai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
