TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed considered this point to come to a finding that the cum-tax benefit is not available to the appellants. Although in the concluding para, while remanding the case for de novo adjudication, CESTAT had not given specific directions to extend the said benefit, it can be argued that CESTAT intended to extend such benefit. At the stage of deciding stay petition, prima facie, this point can be allowed to play in favour of the appellants. As regards the contention of the appellants that they had given separate values of the goods supplied and therefore the benefit of deduction of the value of the goods should have been allowed and also the work done in J&K should also have been excluded, we find that the point regarding service rendered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating authority has completely disregarded the Hon ble CESTAT s directions/observations inasmuch as: (1) The demand has been confirmed on services rendered to MES, and (2) The cum-service tax benefit has not been extended. 4. The ld. A.R. defended the impugned order stating that the de novo adjudication has taken due note of the CESTAT s order. 5. We have perused the CESTAT order. It is seen that the order refers to Ministry of Finance clarification stating that repair and maintenance service rendered to MES would not be taxable under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services as MES is not a commercial organisation. The Honble CESTAT essentially referred to the said clarification while stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service rendered in J K had not been taken up by the Appellants before the adjudicating authority but their contention regarding excluding the value of goods for the purpose of service tax has force as service tax cannot be charged on the sale/transfer of goods. 7. While a detailed analysis of the submissions made by the appellants can be taken up at the time of hearing of the appeal, at this stage of consideration of their stay application, we prima facie notice that out of the gross amount received (Rs.19,90,42,973/-) the value of the goods is indicated to be ₹ 16,35,58,494/-. In short, the value of sweat and labour thus works out to about 17.5% of the gross amount received and the appellants may be entitled to the cum duty benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
