TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the month of April, 2007 on the advance received by them from their client - Held that:- the work contract was introduced as a taxable service with effect from 1.6.2007. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has held that works contract were not taxable prior to 1.6.2007. Therefore, prior to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER After hearing both sides, we find that the appellant was registered with the service tax department for providing commercial and industrial construction services. They entered into a contract with their client on 16.4.07 for providing construction services. However instead of paying Service tax at the rate applicable to the construction service, they discharged their duty liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised the demand by way of issuance of show cause notice, which also proposed to deny the benefit of abatement of notification No. 1/2006-ST on the ground of free supplied items by the service recipient. 3. The show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the adjudicating authority confirming the entire demand along with interest and imposition of penalties. On appeal, Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax during the relevant period would not be sustainable. 5. For the period subsequent to 1.6.2007, the appellant has already discharged their tax liability correctly in accordance with the composite scheme. As such, we are of the view that impugned order of the lower authorities confirming the differential demand and interest and imposing penalty is required to be set aside. We order acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
