2009 (9) TMI 207 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - In this case it is undisputed that the respondents are providing services of site formation and clearance, excavations, earthmoving and demolition services . At the same time it is also undisputed that appellants are doing this activity at Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. The only reason for confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority was on the fact that respondents had a centralized billing system at Vijayawada which is falling within the jurisdiction of Guntur Commissionerate - In this case, the activity of rendering services was done at Bilaspur and it is on record that the respondent had taken service tax registration from Chind-wan Division, of Bhopal Commissionerate in March, 2006. If that be so, a show cause notice dated 13-10-2006 issued by the Guntur Cominissionerate for the demand of service tax on services rendered at Chindwan Division, of Bhopal Commissionerate cannot be held as correct in law and to proceed against the respondents for the violation, if any. We are convinced that there is no jurisdiction of the Guntur Commissionerate to proceed against the respondents default, if any, at other Commissionerate. Accordingly, in view of these findings, we hold that the impugned order setting aside demand relying on tribunal s decision in Ores India Ltd v. CCE 2008 - TMI - 2787 - CESTAT, KOLKATA , is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity

Summary

Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction of the Guntur Commissionerate in service tax matters.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdictional Issue:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 28/2008 (G) S.T., dated 29-5-2008, concerning the services provided by a construction company to various mines. The dispute revolved around whether the services fell under taxable categories and if the company had discharged its service tax liability. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) only considered jurisdiction and not the merits of the case. On the other hand, the respondent argued that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Guntur Commissionerate, citing a decision and a Board Circular supporting their stance. The Tribunal found that the respondents were providing taxable services at a location outside the Guntur Commissionerate's jurisdiction and had taken service tax registration from a different division. The Tribunal held that the Guntur Commissionerate lacked jurisdiction to issue the demand notice or confirm the demand, as the services were rendered in a different area. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily addressed the issue of jurisdiction concerning service tax matters, emphasizing the importance of registration location and the geographical scope of authority. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, highlighting the legal provisions and precedents supporting their argument, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.