Quality Constructions and Another Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Aurangabad and Another

Quality Constructions and Another vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Aurangabad and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 08, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/941857

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/941857
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: The Honourable Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) &Amp; the Honourable Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Decided On: May 08, 2012
Case Number: Appln.No.ST/S/1683/11 APPEAL No.ST/547/11 & ST/584/11 Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.P-I
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Quality Constructions and Another

Advocate For the Appellants : Shri.Sheode, Cost Accountant. For the Respondents : Shri.A.K.Prabhakar, AR.

Respondent

Commissioner of Service Tax, Aurangabad and Another

Excerpt

.....a demand of service tax was confirmed on the basis of purchase orders received by the appellants. on appeal to the commissioner (appeals), the abatement as per notification no.01/2006 was given on gross value shown in the purchase order i.e. 33% of the value of purchase order was held as taxable service. aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 4. on behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the demands have been raised on the basis of purchase order, which is not correct view. in fact the appellant has raised invoices for the activities conducted by them during the impugned period and service tax is to be demanded on the basis of gross value of the service less abatement on the invoice value of services provided by them. therefore, the impugned order be set aside and remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for re-computation of the demands. 5. heard the ld. consultant and perused the records. 6. during the course of hearing, the ld. consultant produced a statement showing that after confirming the demand as per invoicewise, they have short paid a sum of rs.6,02,882/- out of which rs.4,66,424/- they have paid before issuance of the show-cause notice. therefore, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of balance rs.1,36,458/- within four weeks and compliance to be reported before the adjudicating authority. thereafter, the adjudicating authority will consider their contentions to quantify the service tax on the basis of invoice raised by the appellant during the impugned period, all other issues are kept open. 7. appeal as well as stay applications is disposed of in the above manner. the revenue’s appeal is also stands disposed of in the above manner.

Full Judgment

Ashok Jindal

1. The appellants have filed this appeal along with stay application against confirmation of service tax demands of Rs.18,63,112/- along with interest and penalty under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The appellants are engaged in the activity of erection of wind mills and widening of roads. As the appellants were not registered with the service tax department, after conducting inquiry, a show-cause notice was issued for demand of service tax, interest and for levy of penalty under the various provisions of the Finance Act.

3. During the course of adjudication proceedings a demand of service tax was confirmed on the basis of purchase orders received by the appellants. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the abatement as per notification No.01/2006 was given on gross value shown in the purchase order i.e. 33% of the value of purchase order was held as taxable service. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us.

4. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the demands have been raised on the basis of purchase order, which is not correct view. In fact the appellant has raised invoices for the activities conducted by them during the impugned period and service tax is to be demanded on the basis of gross value of the service less abatement on the invoice value of services provided by them. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for re-computation of the demands.

5. Heard the Ld. Consultant and perused the records.

6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Consultant produced a statement showing that after confirming the demand as per invoicewise, they have short paid a sum of Rs.6,02,882/- out of which Rs.4,66,424/- they have paid before issuance of the show-cause notice. Therefore, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of balance Rs.1,36,458/- within four weeks and compliance to be reported before the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority will consider their contentions to quantify the service tax on the basis of invoice raised by the appellant during the impugned period, all other issues are kept open.

7. Appeal as well as stay applications is disposed of in the above manner. The revenue’s appeal is also stands disposed of in the above manner.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Quality Constructions and Another vs Commissioner of Service ... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) &Amp; the ...