2011 (9) TMI 833

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry in respect of Rs.71,02,992/- being the sum of service tax and education cess and also in respect of equal amount of penalty demanded by the adjudicating authority. The impugned demand is under the head 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Service' falling under Section 65(25)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65(105)(zzq) of the said Act for the period from 10/9/2004 to 31/3/2009....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2007. It has also been pointed out that the ld. Commissioner, who adjudicated the relevant show-Cause notice, did not take into account the payments made under the head 'Works Contract' for the period from 01/06/2007, while quantifying the demand. It is further submitted that the ld. Commissioner ought to have granted the benefit of abatement to the extent of 67% of the gross amount charged from c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'. Ld. Jt.CDR points out that, in respect of the construction works executed by the appellant for the benefit of other clients, there was no written contract. It is, therefore, urged that the appellant be directed to pre-deposit the adjudged amounts. 4. In his rejoinder, ld. Chartered Accountant has pleaded financial hardships in support of the prayer of waiver of pre-deposit. It is submitted tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t stages of the construction activity specified for the purpose of billing. Nothing contained in the said agreement or in the bill indicates that the appellant was executing 'Works Contract' as a composite contract not capable of being specifically classified under 'Commercial/Industrial Construction Service'. This is the main reason why we have not found prima-facie case for the appellant. Furthe....