9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Jain, D.R. ORDER Per S.K. Mohanty : This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax, Faridabad. 2. In this case, the appellant provides commercial and industrial construction service, which is taxable as per the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. For providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the Revenue submits that the work order issued by M/s Sharma Constructions clearly specified the scope of work, which was confined to execution of job work only and there was no mention about supply of material by the appellant. Thus, he contends that the benefit of abatement, as provided under Notification dated 1.3.2006 should not be available to the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se records to show that for execution of the assigned job, the appellant had also used the material, we are of the view that the benefit of abatement provided under notification dated 10.9.204 read with notification dated 1.3.2006 should not be available to the appellant. 8. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
