2016 (11) TMI 1112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondent: Shri G.M. Sharma, AR ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for demand of duty of service tax alongwith interest and imposition of penalty on them.    2.  The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the construction activity and was not registered with the Central Excise department till 30.05.2007. With effect from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., he granted the benefit for the services pertaining to the activity undertaken in the of State of Jammu and Kashmir and remanded back the matter for quantification of demand if any, payable by the appellant alongwith interest and equivalent penalty of service tax was imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.     3.  Learned Counsel for the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  therefore, no demand can be confirmed under the category of work contract service.       5.  On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.     6.  Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7.  In the show cause notice, the demand has been raised for the period 1.4.2006 till 2010-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... same is upheld. 8.  As the Commissioner (Appeals) has already given the benefit for the period prior to 1.6.2007 for the activity undertaken by the appellant is not liable to be taxed under the category of commercial or industrial construction service. For the period 1.6.2007, the appellant is not liable to be taxed on the services provided in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. These findings ....