https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366765 Substantive entitlement to the works contract composition scheme under service tax could not be denied merely because the Rule 3(3) option was not filed in formal time, where the assessee's election was communicated to the department before payment and the scheme conditions were otherwise satisfied. The assessee was also held entitled to cum-tax treatment because the contract value was treated as inclusive of tax, and the penalty finding was sustained on the basis of delayed payment and suppression. The impugned order was affirmed and the departmental appeal failed. en-us Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:10:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366765 Substantive entitlement to the works contract composition scheme under service tax could not be denied merely because the Rule 3(3) option was not filed in formal time, where the assessee's election was communicated to the department before payment and the scheme conditions were otherwise satisfied. The assessee was also held entitled to cum-tax treatment because the contract value was treated as inclusive of tax, and the penalty finding was sustained on the basis of delayed payment and suppression. The impugned order was affirmed and the departmental appeal failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366765