2014 (4) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellants - Therefore, matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY AND SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. B.G.CHIDANANDA URS, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Nigam, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per B.S.V. MURTHY In both the appeals, the issue involved is common and therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for the disposal and a common order is being passed. 2. We heard both sides for quite some time and considerable time was taken by learned counsel also to explain as to why their activities come under the category of 'Site Formation' at all. After considering the submissions and going through the records and the impugned orders, we find that the matter is required to be remanded to the origin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion order to support this submission that the assessee did not give necessary details and therefore, the department had no other option but to demand service tax on the entire consideration as per the agreements. 5. We find that one of the main grounds taken by learned counsel before the original adjudicating authority that the service rendered by the appellant is to be classified as 'works contract' and not as 'site formation' has not been discussed but not accepted. This should have been considered in detail by the Commissioner based on the submissions made by the appellants. We felt that the observations in paragraphs 24 & 25 are totally irrelevant and not based on facts and did not interpret the Chartered Accountant's certificate produ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee vide letter dated 7.4.2010 and found that total amount reflected is Rs. 33,28,52,495/- and not Rs. 23,28,52,495/-. 25. Though, it is very clearly spell out in the said show cause notice till date M/s SLN did not furnish the value of land cost along with any statutory taxes paid to the department in spite of the opportunities provided through the period provided for reply to the notice as well as the multiple personal hearing provided. This either reflects that the assessee has misled the department or does not consider it his obligation to provide the details. Therefore, I am left with no choice but to confirm the entire service tax of Rs. 22,05,10,355/- demanded in the aforementioned show cause notice. The certificate certified total .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... '. In the absence of such observation, one can assume that the Commissioner was inclined to exclude land cost but since it was not available, proceeded to confirm demand on the entire value. 6. In view of the infirmity in the impugned order and since we feel that the Commissioner should reconsider all those issues raised by the appellants, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that the appellants shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before passing a final order. We also request the Commissioner to consider all the issues that will be raised before him and pass a well reasoned order so that repeated litigation can be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X