TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cost already incurred by them was reimbursed to them by the latter. However, this reimbursement is only for the value of taxable service already rendered for works contract service, albeit for incomplete part of the project - the V.C.E.S application will necessarily be hit by second proviso to Section 106 (1) ibid since it seeks to make a declaration on the same issue for which a notice or order of determination had been issued against them for earlier period - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/41702/2016 - FINAL ORDER No. 42499/2016 - Dated:- 5-12-2016 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Appearance: Shri N.K. Bharat Kumar, C.A For the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Company and therefore the issues are not identical, hence the second proviso to Section 106 (1) ibid cannot apply. He also referred to the case law in Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs AC, VCES, ST -2014-TIOL-396-HC-DEL-ST wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that when second proviso to Section 106 (1) alludes to any issue it must therefore mean that the issue must be pending before the Tribunal or some of the tax authorities or should have been determined. 3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri A.Cletus, ADC draws my attention to para 8(i) of the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) has analyzed the matter in detail and has concluded that it makes no difference whether taxable value was collected as under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod, value of taxable service was received directly from the individual flat buyers. However, in the instant case, since they had to suspend the project midway and sought the help of their partner, the cost already incurred by them was reimbursed to them by the latter. However, this reimbursement is only for the value of taxable service already rendered for works contract service, albeit for incomplete part of the project. Appellant cannot therefore contend that this reimbursement of cost cannot be considered as value of taxable service of works contract services. In fact, by making the declaration under V.C.E.S, they have de-facto accepted the view taken by the department. In the circumstances, the V.C.E.S application will necessarily be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
