9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) And MR. P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri Ms.Marry Jossy, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER PER : P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. Both these appeals are for the subsequent period in a matter already decided by this Bench in Appeal Nos.ST/26 and 44/2012 vide Final Order Nos.42320-42321/2018 dt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Bench for the previous period in Final Order Nos.42320-42321/2018 dated 29.08.2018 were as follows : "6. The first issue is with regard to the allegation that the appellant has paid the service tax only on the civil construction part of the contract and that has artificially bifurcated the turnkey project into three separate contracts. It is very much clear from the facts that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and has proceeded to deny abatement on the civil works portion by observing that the tax payer cannot pay full rate on one portion and avail abatement on the other portion. But, it is seen that the Revenue has made no attempt to combine the three contracts into one mega turnkey project. No attempt has been made to assess such a composite contract as a single works contract. Hence we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority was in error by blindly sticking on the classification under 65 (105) (zzd) as declared by the appellant in their ST-3 returns." Following the same, we are of the view that the said allegation or the demand on this count cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 6.1 The second allegation is that the appellant cannot opt to pay service tax under the composition s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
