2018 (5) TMI 765

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant entered into an agreement with M/s Adit Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. for construction of the industrial building. Such agreement has fixed the payment schedule, based on which the payments have to be made by the appellant to the contractor. The said schedule provided for initial payment of 10% as mobilisation advance, 80% on pro rata basis and 10% after handing over the complete site. The contract also stipulated that the service tax shall be leviable extra. On the basis of the agreement, the contractor executed the job and on completion of certain construction activities, issued the invoice dated 14.3.2011, claiming an amount of Rs. 4,49,18,095.03 from the appellant with the service tax amount of Rs. 21,65,924.95. The invoice (1st RA bill d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tribunal. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that on the basis of completion of the assigned job, the contractor had issued the invoice (1st RA bill) on 14.3.2011. That upon verification of such invoice by the architect firm, the price approved was paid by the appellant to the service provider along with the service tax amount. Thus, he submits that since the appellant had availed the Cenvat credit in respect of construction service received prior to 1.4.2011, in terms of the unamended definition of input service, effective up to 31.3.2011, the Cenvat benefit should be available to the appellant. He further submits that the work executed by the contractor after 1.4.2011 were not considered by the appellant for taki....