https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271661 Where a composite tower supply arrangement separately priced the supply of towers and the erection/commissioning service, and the service work was subcontracted to a contractor who had already paid service tax, the main contractor was treated prima facie as not itself providing the taxable service for stay purposes. On that basis, the tribunal granted interim protection, stayed recovery of the remaining adjudicated demand, and directed no further pre-deposit pending appeal. The claimed 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST was treated as immaterial to interim relief in the circumstances, since the amount already paid was considered while assessing pre-deposit and recovery. en-us Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:42:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271661 Where a composite tower supply arrangement separately priced the supply of towers and the erection/commissioning service, and the service work was subcontracted to a contractor who had already paid service tax, the main contractor was treated prima facie as not itself providing the taxable service for stay purposes. On that basis, the tribunal granted interim protection, stayed recovery of the remaining adjudicated demand, and directed no further pre-deposit pending appeal. The claimed 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST was treated as immaterial to interim relief in the circumstances, since the amount already paid was considered while assessing pre-deposit and recovery. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271661