TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces and not on gross value inclusive of value of materials, in terms of notification number 12/2003 dated 12.06.2003. The audit objection was raised to the effect that service tax is required to be paid on the gross amount received by the appellant and accordingly the Revenue sought explanation from the assessee as to why the service tax should not be confirmed on the gross value. 2. In view of the above developments, the appellant deposited the differential service tax of Rs. 1,51,881/- vide challans dated 02.12.2006 and 01.03.2007. As the assessee had deposited the disputed differential service tax amount, no proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show cause notice. As per the appellant the disputed issue i.e. whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case the provisions of section 11B as regards limitation would apply or the same is required to be considered as deposit as contented by the appellant in which case no limitation would apply. Both the sides have drawn my attention to various decisions in support of their contention. It is well settled law that any deposits made by an assessee towards a demand which is disputable, will not attract the provisions of limitation, whereas any payments made towards the tax amount would attract limitation provisions. 5. On going through the facts of the present case I find that it was during an audit objection that differential demand of Rs. 1,51,881/- was found to have not been paid by the appellant. The appellants were asked for an explanation ....