TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Appellant Shri Kuldeep Rawat, Authorized Representative ( DR ) - for the Department ORDER ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein contesting the demand confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) amounting to Rs. 1,73,355/-. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a sub-contractor engaged in the activity of maintenance and repair of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement of 67% from the total aggrieved amount received by them. The appellant was also availing Cenvat credit on input during the impugned period for providing output service. In these facts and circumstances, the enquiry was conducted against the appellant and a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand service tax, along with interest and penalty to impose upon the appellant. The m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025. On 22.01.2025, none appeared on behalf of the appellant but in the interest of justice a last chance was given to the appellant to come up the matter on 18.02.2025. On 18.02.2025, again proxy counsel appeared and sought adjournment and the matter was adjourned for 09.04.2025. On 09.04.2025 matter was adjourned for today. Today also, the proxy counsel appearing on behalf of main counsel seeki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice along with material. I have gone through the work order placed by the appellant on record and as per the work orders placed by the appellant only one work order No. 511-1400/SGTPS/W/IMD-I/W/Ord-54/733 dated 19.10.2013 material cost is involved Rs. 1,98,792/- on which CST @2% has been paid by the appellant and the material cost is shown as Rs. 3,97,584/-. On the other contracts produced by th....