TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of remand. - Appeals No. ST/2010/2010, ST/2415/2010 - A/31413–31414/2018 - Dated:- 12-11-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Y. Siri Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant Assessee. Shri Pawan Kumar, Asst. Commissioner /AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. P.V. Subba Rao 1. Both these appeals are filed against same Order-in-Appeal 10/2010 (V-II) ST, dt. 19.05.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. Appeal No. ST/2010/2010 has been preferred by Revenue against the demands dropped by the first appellate authority while the appeal No. ST/2415/2010 has been preferred by the assessee against the demands confirmed by the first appellate authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the nature of work was clearly specified as Structural Repair Works. This has been admitted even by the assessee and it is argued that the first appellate authority has wrongly held that there was no maintenance contract and dropped the demand. 3. As regards the second part of the period i.e., for the period post 16.06.2005, the differential of service tax was originally quantified as ₹ 15,11,826/- whereas the O-I-A has reduced the amount without sufficient justification. Thirdly, the first appellate authority has also held that an amount of ₹ 5,71,269/- is not liable to be paid for the reason that the principal contractor has fulfilled the obligation of payment of service tax rendered by the asessee as a sub contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority has erred in confirming the demand of ₹ 2,20,588/- for the services rendered to M/s RINL subsequent to 16.06.2005 for which payments were received prior to that date. Appellant declared the value of the taxable services provided after 16.06.2005 i.e. from the date on which he became liable to pay tax. There was no requirement to pay any service tax on the services for which amount was received prior to 16.06.2005. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above submissions and prayed that the Order-in-Appeal may be set aside along with the demand confirmed therein. Ld. DR reiterated the grounds of appeal in the Revenue s appeal. 6. We have considered the arguments on both sides and find that both sides dispute t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant period are examined before coming to a conclusion as to whether they were covered under the maintenance contract or not. For the period post 16.06.2005, Revenue contends that the total amount payable has been wrongly computed by the first appellate authority, firstly by holding that main contractor has paid duty and therefore sub contractor is not required to do so in respect of M/s Bridge Roof Limited. The assessee also disputes the calculation holding that this benefit was not given for identical cases with respect to three other clients. 7. We also find that Revenue s contends that the appellant assessee has actually paid service tax as indicated in the show cause notice whereas the first appellate authority has taken th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
