2013 (9) TMI 1170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act, 1994. 2. Learned CA appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the demand is bifurcated as under :- S. No. Name of work Period Amount demanded (Rs.) 1. Works contract (construction of hotels) 2005-06 to 2007-08 34,91,178/- 2. Construction of residential complex 2005-06 to 2009-10 42,01,090/- 3. Works contract (Residential complex) 2007-08 to 2009.-10 1,32,29,790/- 4. Maintenance and repair service 2005-06 to 2009-10 91,76,607/- (Apportioned) 5. Renting of immovable property service 2007-08 to 2009-10 2,68,833/- (Apportioned) 6. Engineering Consultancy service 2009-10 20,685/- (Apportioned) It is the submission that as regards "Works ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is the submission that the lower authority has not accepted the same and confirmed the differential service tax. As regards the other three services mentioned herein above (Sl. Nos. 4 to 6), he submits that they have deposited the amounts and not contesting the issue on merits but contesting only imposition of penalty. 3. Learned Commissioner (AR), on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that the appellant has not given, any evidence regarding 'construction of residential complex' and they were paying VAT. It is the submission that as regards the differential service tax confirmed by the adjudicating authority on 'works contract (residential complex)', the appellant should have inform....