TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of composite scheme is not available to the appellant. As per N/N. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of said notification as the appellant has not availed any Cenvat credit on input/ input services. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on 1/3rd of their gross turnover - Admittedly, in this case the appellant has not availed Cenvat credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that the appellant is a Contractor and entered into a contract with SRS Group of Companies and started his work. During the impugned period they opted for composition scheme for the period August 2007 to October 2007 by way of filing their ST-3 Returns. During scrutiny of ST-3 Returns, it was observed that appellant being work contractor, required to pay service tax on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the continuing contracts. He submitted that apart from the benefit of composite scheme, they are entitled for abatement as per Notification No.01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. 4. On the other hand ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. We find that, as the appellant has failed to show the evidence that during the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on 1/3rd of their gross turnover. Admittedly, in this case the appellant has not availed Cenvat credit on input/ input services, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST (ibid). Accordingly, the appellant is liable to pay service tax on 33% of the total contract value received during the impugned period. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
