TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices for prior period or the subsequent period. As the services of Works Contract became taxable with effect from 01.06.2007, therefore, the demands pertaining to prior to 01.06.2007 are not sustainable. For the period post 01.06.2007, as it is been held that services merit classification under Works Contract services and it is not disputed that appellant is providing services along with material, in that circumstance, the appellant is entitled for abatement of 67% of the value of taxable services and for remaining 33% value of the service, the appellant is paying service tax. Therefore, on the gross value of services provided by the appellant, are not taxable. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - As on the same issue, earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are not entitled for abatement of 67% under Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004, as amended by Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 and also not entitled for benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. Therefore, various show cause notices were issued to the appellant to demand service tax on gross value of the services provided by the appellant, classifying their activity under the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction Services, as they were providing completion and finishing services only. Therefore, demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and various penalties on the appellant were also imposed. Against those orders, the appellant is before us. 3. In Appeal No. ST/259/2009 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice was issued on 26.04.2010 by invoking extended period of limitation. It is his submission that on the same issue, appellant were issued show cause notice for the prior period earlier, therefore, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. CCE, AP 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC), the show cause notice cannot be issued by invoking extended period of limitation. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned orders are to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned orders. 5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that it is not disputed that appellant is executing the wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
