2016 (10) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rised Representative for the Appellant. Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.  [Order per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar]  Brief facts are that the appellant had executed construction services in relation to Hydro Power Projects and not discharged service tax thereon under the impression that service was exempted since it was provided in relation to canal work. Revenue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ld Counsel for appellant Sh. B. Venugopal at the outset stated that the appellant does not contest the demand of service tax confirmed with regard to the Management Consultancy services. Therefore in this appeal we confine our discussions with regard to WCS only. 3. The Ld Counsel submitted that non-payment was only due to bonafide belief that work in respect of canals are not liable to tax. In r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d out that the work involved in this work order was originally awarded to GVK Projects who in turn sub- contracted the same on back to back basis to R. Balarama Reddy and Co. Later on GVK Projects was taken on by Vertex Projects who issued amended work order to R. Balarama Reddy and Co, who in turn sub contracted entire work to appellant vide letter dated 15.11.2008. Hence WCS related to this work....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Ld. AR vehemently reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and submitted that the appellants would be governed by composition scheme as per amendment brought about in Rules vide notification dated 07.07.2009. 6. Heard both sides. 7. After hearing the submissions and going through the records, we do find that the contentions put forth by the Ld. Counsel for appellant do have merit. In....