9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set aside the impugned demand to the extent it arises as a consequence of denial of benefit of abatement of 67%. However the demand on account of the appellant not being eligible for the composition scheme (under WCS) in respect of projects which were ongoing from prior to 01.06.2007 is sustainable - Matter remanded back for quantification of tax liability - Decided partly in favor of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No.ST/53677/2014-ST [DB] - ST/A/51826/2016-CU(DB) - Dated:- 6-5-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. R.K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri.Sumit Wadhva, Advocate And Shri Mukul Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Satyaveer Singh, Chief Commr.(A.R.) and Shri Rajeev Gupta, Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Composition Scheme in respect of the projects which were on-going from before 01.06.2007, and accordingly, it has paid differential service tax amounting to ₹ 37,01,631/- during the investigation itself. (iv) The extended period in this case is not invokable as there is no willful misstatement or suppression of facts and there was an earlier show cause notice issued invoking extended period covering the period June, 2005 to September, 2006 and therefore, extended period cannot be invoked in subsequent show cause notice covering subsequent period. 3. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority particularly on page 172 of the appeal paper-book where the Commissioner has rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such capital goods, the benefit of abatement cannot be disallowed in respect of the projects for which the said capital goods were not used merely because those capital goods could be used for these projects also. We do not find even a prima facie evidence in the show cause notice or in the adjudication order to the effect that any cenvat credit was indeed taken in respect of capital goods used for the projects to which the impugned demand pertains on account of denial of 67% abatement. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussion it becomes evident that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of abatement of 67% under Notification No.18/2005-ST/1/2006-ST and therefore, the impugned demand confirmed on the ground that the appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ising as a consequence of denial of benefit of Composition Scheme (under Work Contract Service) in respect of projects which were on going from before 01.06.2007. The interest and penalty aspects relating only to the demand so computed will also be simultaneously adjudicated by the adjudicating authority taking into account the appellant s pleading, inter alia, regarding the issue of time-bar and mandatory (equal) penalty. The Adjudicating Authority shall give the appellant opportunity of being heard during which it will be open for the appellant to inter alia plead that it was not guilty of willful misstatement or suppression of facts and therefore extended period and mandatory equal penalty are not invokable. [Dictated and pronounced i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
