2014 (7) TMI 200 - AT - Service Tax

Erection, Commissioning or Installation services - failure to obtain registration - failure to file periodic returns and disclose gross consideration received - failure to remit the due tax - Neither in response to summons issued nor in response to the show cause notice, did the petitioner choose to furnish copies of the several work orders/agreements under which petitioner executed works entrusted to it by L & T Ltd. - Held that - petitioner failed to cooperate and to meaningfully participate in the adjudication proceedings and thereby disabled rational analysis of all the work orders - no serious infirmity in the conclusion recorded by the adjudicating authority that the petitioner had provided ECIS to L & T Ltd., a taxable service under Section 65 (39a) read with Section 65(105)(zzd) of the Finance Act, 1994. Regarding the challenge on the point of jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raipur - Held that - in terms of Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the petitioner has opted neither for centralised registration nor for registration at different sites in different States where works were executed were in favour of L & T Ltd. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Raipur, within the jurisdiction of the Raipur Commissionerate and operates within the domain of that Commissionerate. It is the petitioner who is service provider and not the site manager at the work sites in the various States. We find no warrant, prima facie, to conclude that the Commissioner, Raipur had no jurisdiction. No provision of any statute or of any notification which calls into question the exercise of jurisdiction by the Raipur Commissioner is brought to our notice. - no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to warrant granting waiver of pre deposit in full - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of levy of service tax and penalties by the Commissioner
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raipur

Confirmation of levy of service tax and penalties:
The appeal was filed against the adjudication order confirming the levy of a substantial amount, interest, and penalties under various sections of the Act for the period from 1.10.06 to 15.12.2011. The proceedings were initiated based on a show cause notice stating that the appellant provided "Erection, Commissioning or Installation" services to a recipient, failed to obtain registration, file returns, disclose consideration received, or remit due tax. The appellant's response claimed no liability due to being a sub-contractor and lack of advice regarding registration or tax remittance. However, the proprietor later admitted to providing services falling within the taxable category. Despite uncooperative behavior, the adjudicating authority analyzed sample work orders and concluded that the services provided were taxable. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raipur, but the Tribunal found no jurisdictional issue as the appellant operated within the Raipur Commissionerate's domain and did not opt for centralized or multi-state registration.

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raipur:
The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Raipur Commissioner, citing a decision from a Regional Bench. However, the Tribunal found no legal basis to question the Commissioner's jurisdiction, emphasizing that Service Tax is a Union levy administered by Central Government employees. Without specific legislation or notification limiting the Commissioner's jurisdiction territorially, the Raipur Commissioner's exercise of jurisdiction was deemed valid, especially considering the appellant's location within that jurisdiction. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction and classification of services as Erection, Commissioning or Installation services.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no prima facie case to grant a waiver of pre-deposit, directing the appellant to deposit the assessed liability and interest within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply would result in the appeal's rejection. The stay application was disposed of, and a miscellaneous application for early hearing was dismissed.