Case Law Details

Case Name : P.C. Snehal Construction Co. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Appeal No. ST/240 OF 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/06/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (749) CESTAT Ahmedabad (104)


P.C. Snehal Construction Co.


Commissioner of Service Tax

ORDER NO. S/1192/WZB/AHD./2012


APPEAL NO. ST/240 OF 2012

JUNE 25, 2012


M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member

This Stay Petition is filed for waiver of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 38,53,888/-, interest thereof and penalties under Section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

2. The issue involved is regarding non-inclusion of cost of free material supplied to the appellant by the service recipient during the period October 2005 to March 2008.

3. After hearing both sides for some time on Stay Petition, we find that the period involved in this case is covering the period in which the Service Tax liability was not in question and in part of the period post Service Tax valuation rules which came into statute. This Bench has been taking a consistent view that post service tax valuation rules, the said rules provides for inclusion of free material supplied by service recipients and has been directing the assessee in other cases to deposit some amount of the Service Tex liability for the period post service Tax valuation rules as a condition to hear and dispose the appeal. In this case, as correctly pointed out by ld. Sr. Advocate, the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 9,04,000/- against the demand of Rs. 38.53 lakhs for the entire period. All the legal issues raised by ld. Sr. Advocate can be considered at the time of final disposal of appeal. We consider the amount deposited by the appellant as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal.

4. Accordingly, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal.

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3395)
Type : Judiciary (12122)
Tags : Cestat judgments (937)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *