2015 (11) TMI 1259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....K. Sarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, D.R. ORDER Per R.K. Singh: Stay application along with appeal has been filed against order-in-original dated 27.11.2013 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs. 3,82,30,870/- was confirmed for the period 6/2006 to 3/2008 under commercial or industrial construction service along with interest and penalties on the ground that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate however conceded that this amount had been recovered by the appellant from service recipients.  (ii) The demand which arises as a result of denial of 67% abatement works out to Rs. 3,11,96,509/- for the entire period including the period prior to 1.6.2007. Non-inclusion of the value of free supply material does not disentitle it to the benefit of 67% abatement in view of CES....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t during the said period had been recovered from the customers and therefore the appellant is not entitled to refund thereof. Consequently the appellant cannot count it towards any pre-deposit. We find force in the contention of ld. DR that 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST was rightly denied because the appellant had taken Cenvat credit on input service. However, we must take note of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mer at 33% of the value. Thus It is clear that as against recovery of Rs. 1,41,91,440/- towards service tax it only deposited Rs. 71,57,079/- and retained Rs. 70,34,361/-. Further the challans under which this amount is claimed to have been deposited do not bear any link with the impugned demand nor did the appellant claim so before the lower authorities. 5. In the light of the foregoing analys....