9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 550 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre deposit - Commercial or Industrial construction service - abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1/03/2006 - Held that - Commissioner had categorically observed that the applicant could not adduce evidences to justify the claim that the services rendered by them are only Works Contract Service , consequently, he has confirmed the demand of service tax for the services rendered by them viz. assembling of tower etc. under the category of erection, commissioning or installation of telecommunication towers. Thus the issue is related to appreciation of evidences adduced by both sides. Also, he has denied the abatement on the ground that the Applicant failed to fulfil the condition of Notification No.01/2006 ST dt.01.03.2006. It is the claim of the Applicant that they have reversed total CENVAT credit of ₹ 70,563/- attributable to the input service availed in providing the out put service for which benefit of Notification 01/2006 ST dt.01.03.2006 was denied to them. We find that the said reversal was made after passing of the impugned Order as is evident from their letter dt.20.06.2013 - Partial stay granted.
Issues Involved:
Application for waiver of Service Tax, penalty under Section 78, and penalties under other provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 due to demand of Service Tax on services provided under various categories such as Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services, Management, Maintenance or Repair Service, and Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the application seeking waiver of Service Tax, penalty, and other penalties imposed on the appellant. The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of Service Tax on the grounds that the services provided fell under different categories from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. The services included Erection, Commissioning or Installation of Telecommunication Towers, maintenance work of old towers, and construction of buildings and civil works. The appellant argued that the services should be classified as Works Contract Service, exempt from Service Tax before 01/06/2007. The Commissioner denied abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, stating that evidence of sale of materials was lacking. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to provide evidence of sale of materials and did not fulfill the conditions of the Notification by availing CENVAT Credit on input services, making them ineligible for abatement. The Commissioner confirmed the services under the categories of erection, commissioning or installation services, rejecting the plea of Works Contract Service. The appellant reversed the CENVAT Credit belatedly, after the adjudication order, but the Commissioner maintained the denial of abatement. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner observed the lack of evidence to support the claim of Works Contract Service by the appellant. The denial of abatement was based on the failure to fulfill the conditions of Notification No.01/2006-ST. The appellant's reversal of CENVAT Credit after the adjudication order was considered. To balance the interests of revenue, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount pending the appeal's disposal. Failure to comply would lead to the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. The decision aimed to address the issues of evidence substantiation, abatement eligibility, and compliance with Notification conditions. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, findings, and directives related to the waiver of Service Tax and penalties, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal.
|
