2016 (6) TMI 1274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondent rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for rectification of the mistake which is apparent on the face of the order. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 16.10.2014 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why, the services provided by them should not be classified under "Works Contract Service" in terms of Section 66E(h) of the Act read with Section 65B (54) ibid; the benefit of 75% exemption under Notification No.26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 should not be denied to them; the service portion value should not be determined in terms of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 as 40% of the total amount charged for the works contract and assessed to Service Tax; consequently, an am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Accordingly, the authority proceeded to confirm the demand. It is thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 29.02.2016 for rectification in the quantification and pointed out that they have submitted the records and those records has not been considered while passing the impugned order 4. The respondent by the impugned proceedings held that no action under Section 74 of the Act is required and such power could be exercised for rectification only if there is an error apparent from the records of the case and it cannot be a long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The respondent in the impugned order referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sa....