2013 (9) TMI 430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at appellants had not discharged their liability properly. The issue raised by Revenue is that appellants in some cases were receiving materials used for construction activity, like cement and steel. According to Revenue, if value of materials supplied by person receiving service was not added in the gross consideration received by the provider of service, abatement under Notification No.15/04 and 1/06 could not be granted. Therefore, proceedings were initiated for recovery of differential tax which proceeding culminated in a confirmation of tax demand of Rs.6,15,09,648/-for the said period. This demand is based on figures taken from P&L account Statements of the appellant for the years 2005-06 to 2009-10 without allowing any abatement. Agg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....07 (7) STR 123 (Mad.) In all these cases, the Courts or the Tribunal have granted stay for hearing the appeal without any pre-deposit. 4. Opposing the prayer, the Ld. AR for Revenue submits that the question whether value of the materials supplied free is to be included to the value received by the appellant is decided by Tribunal in Jaihind Projects Ltd. Vs CST Ahmedabad - 2010 (18) STR 650 (Tri.-Ahmd.) even after taking into consideration the decisions cited by the applicant namely that in Era Infra Engg. Ltd., L&T Ltd. and P. Chandran cited supra and the Tribunal was of the view that value of the material should be included irrespective of the source of supply. 5. The Ld AR further submits that the construction activity was in r....