TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,45,140/- is composed of two figures. One such figure is Rs.4,14,743/- appearing in the table at page 119 of the appeal folder (page 18 of the Order-In-Original). That demand relates to levy of service tax on material supplied by the contractee. When the material is supplied by the contractee, they shall not form part of assessable value of taxable service since the appellant has no ownership of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssified under the respective taxable service prior to 01.06.2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, it would be the appropriate classification for the part of the service provided after that date." 3. Ld. Counsel submits that the services which are taxable under dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi, we are not insisting pre-deposit on the controversy. Therefore, at this stage, there shall be waiver of requirement of pre-deposit in respect of demand of Rs.4,14,743 composed in the demand of Rs. 18,96,429/-. 7. So far as second stroke of demand of Rs. 14,81,687/- is concerned, we have examined Ld. Counsel's submissions and also examined the work done by the appellant. We have also looked in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....frame of works contract. Prima-facie this does not alter the levy by any argument of restropectivity or any prospectivity of application of the law. We are conscious of the Apex Court decisions on the nature of legislation to what extent shall be retrospective and to what extent shall be prospective. 8. When we notice the feature of the present case as aforesaid and work was executed in 2007-08, ....