2024 (5) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of service tax - Construction service provided to Government body - commercial or industrial construction services or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Though the demand pertains to various service providers and of different services but no bifurcation as per service recipient was provided either in the show cause notice or in the adjudication order. Therefore, before crystalizing the demand, it is necessary that the service recipient vise bifurcation should be made, The levy of service tax depends on the nature of service and the category of the service recipient particularly when the assessee claim exemption on account of service provided to Government. After passing the impugned order various judgments were delivered on the identical issue which was neither before the Adjudicating Authority nor the same was considered. The issue on limitation also needs to be reconsidered properly. Therefore, the matter has to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is the demand of service tax confirmed under Commercial or Industrial construction service for various services provided to different parties, with the appellant claiming exemption due to services being provided to Government bodies. Another issue is the invocation of the extended period for raising the demand, which the appellant argues is time-barred due to no suppression of facts.

Analysis of the judgment:

1. Service Tax Demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service:
The appellant provided services such as construction of police stations, residential quarters, and various other construction-related services to different entities. The appellant contended that since all services were provided to Government bodies, they should not fall under commercial or industrial construction services and thus not liable to service tax. The Tribunal noted the lack of bifurcation of demand based on service recipients in the show cause notice or adjudication order. It emphasized that the levy of service tax depends on the nature of service and the category of the service recipient, especially when claiming exemption for services provided to the Government. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for proper reconsideration, citing the need for a service recipient-wise bifurcation and consideration of judgments delivered on similar issues post the impugned order.

2. Invocation of Extended Period for Demand:
The appellant argued that the demand raised by invoking the extended period was incorrect and time-barred due to no suppression of facts. The appellant cited various judgments in support of this argument. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for a proper reconsideration of the limitation issue and decided to set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for further review.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a thorough reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of service recipient-wise bifurcation and proper assessment of the limitation issue.