TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant denied composition scheme, directed to pay more. Construction service classification clarified. Deposit required for waiver.</h1> <h3>R. BALARAMI REDDY & CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD</h3> The Tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for the composition scheme under the works contract and directed them to pay an additional sum. ... Demand of service tax of duty, interest and penalty - Works contract - Site formation - Benefit of composition scheme - Held that:- activities of construction of Ash Dyke cannot be treated as falling under ‘site formation’ but the said activities will fall under Commercial/Industrial Construction service and, therefore, no differential tax is payable - Assessee directed to make a pre deposit - Partial stay granted. Issues:1. Whether the appellant is eligible for the composition scheme under the works contractRs.2. Whether the construction of Ash Dyke falls under site formation or Commercial/Industrial Construction serviceRs.3. What amount needs to be deposited by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of balance duesRs.Analysis:1. The appellants had paid a sum in respect of a works contract but claimed eligibility for the composition scheme. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not eligible for the scheme and directed them to pay a further sum considering the activities related to laying of roads. The total amount to be paid was determined after considering the activities under the contract. The Tribunal held that the appellants are required to pay the additional sum as they are not eligible for the composition scheme.2. The dispute arose regarding the classification of the construction of Ash Dyke. The Department treated it as falling under site formation, demanding a differential tax amount. However, after hearing both sides, the Tribunal prima facie found that the activities of construction of Ash Dyke do not fall under site formation but under Commercial/Industrial Construction service. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that no differential tax is payable in this regard.3. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific sum within a stipulated period and report compliance. Upon deposit of this amount, there would be a waiver of pre-deposit of the balance of dues as per the impugned order, and a stay of recovery would be granted until the disposal of the appeals. The specific amount to be deposited was fixed by the Tribunal, and compliance reporting deadlines were set for the appellant and the Assistant Registrar.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
