Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (3) TMI 1415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellants/Assessee. Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Adv. Mr.Banerjee, Adv. for the Revenue. ORDER The Court: The assessee has preferred this appeal against order dated 18th February, 2016 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Eastern Zonal Bench(CESTAT) in MA 75282/14 in Service Tax Appeal no.303 of 2011 by which the miscellaneous application for restoration of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contention of the appellant that service of construction of road work was not taxable as per definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services falling under the purview of section 65(25b) read with section 65(105)(zzq)of the said Act. By the said order, demand of the said sum of Rs. 1,08,12,868/- was confirmed, of which Rs. 85 lakhs already paid appropriated against the Government dues....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssal of the said appeal, by operation of the direction in the said decision dated 6/8th January, 2014, was dismissed due to non-compliance. Mr. S.P. Majumder, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the present pre-deposit requirement is 7.5% of the demand. The demand could not be said to be more than Rs. 23,12,868/- and, after the amendment, 7.5% of that could o....