9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the appellants who were claiming relief from tax liability. No such evidence has been produced - there is nothing on record to show that the architects paid service tax for value of services rendered by the appellants. Further the Ministry’s clarification is with reference to service rendered by one consulting engineer to another consulting engineer. When the levy on consulting engineers were introduced the stand of the architects were that they were not consulting engineers. In the next Financial Year levy was imposed separately on the service of architects. So there is no reason to consider the impugned services as services rendered through architects as claimed by the appellants. - appellant was registered with service tax authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anil Joseph as Director of Geo Structural (P) Ltd. 2. M/s. Geo Structural was a partnership firm engaged in providing consultancy in the field of building construction to individuals, architects and contractors and other consulting engineers since July 1997. This firm was re-constituted into a private limited company with the name Geo Structural (P) Ltd. with effect from 30-6-2001. The demands for service tax in the two appeals are as under : S. No. Appeal No. Name of Appellant Period Involved Tax amount confirmed in Adjudication Order 1. ST/171/06 Geo Structural 1-7-1997 to 30-6-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in question. But for this modification the order was upheld. 6. In the case of second period the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the appellant that they subsequently appellants had paid an amount of ₹ 31,615/- (service tax + interest), out of the disputed liability and confirmed the rest of the demand. Commissioner did not make any specific order regarding penalty imposed by the adjudication order. 7. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellants have filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Counsel for appellant submits that the demand is for the period 30-9-1998 to 16-10-1998 is not sustainable because the service was rendered by the partnership firm for which the present priv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice provider for services taken by him which services were classifiable under another category. The ld. AR further points out that no proof has been adduced to show that the architects had in fact paid service tax on the value of services rendered by the appellant and the claim now being made is a bald claim. He points out that the appellants were originally paying service tax correctly but started paying tax on part of the value of services rendered without taking any advice from the department and it was a case of deliberate attempt to avoid payment of tax and hence the demand is confirmed correctly. 11. Considered submissions on both sides. 12. The main contention of the appellant is that the architects paid service tax on value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue it is very relevant to examine the documents showing the conversion of the partnership firm to the Private Ltd. company. This document has not been produced at any stage of this proceeding below the lower authorities. So it is evident that their defence now raised was without any basis and we reject this plea. 15. We notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed orders giving certain reliefs in quantum of tax to be paid. However no specific order for corresponding reduction of penalty imposed under Section 78 is passed. So we direct that the adjudicating authority may determine differential tax liability as per directions of Commissioner (Appeals) and also re-determine the penalty under Section 78 in accordance with law. 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
