2018 (1) TMI 308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t : Sh. U. Sengraj, AR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders wherein refund claim was denied. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are contractor and executing works contract and as per the agreements the price which appellant received cum tax price. During the impugned period, the rate of service tax has been reduced from 12.36% to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... chment. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellants are before me. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the price of service rendered on account of works contract is inclusive of service tax, therefore, whatever rate of service tax is applicable during the impugned period was required to be paid by the appellant and admittedly the said amount is payable @ 10.3%. The appellant has i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ichment is applicable. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. In this case, it is an admitted fact that during the impugned period the rate of service tax was 10.3% and all the works executed by the appellant are cum tax price. In the agreement rate of service tax has not been provided. Therefore, whatever service tax is to be paid by the appellant to the department same is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X