9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant with IRCON International, Jhansi/Bhopal. The appellant carried out construction of external/internal works for electrical sub-stations and also laying overhead cables along with various other connected activities. The Revenue entertained a view that the activities carried out by the appellant are liable to be taxed under the category of "Erection, Commissioning or Installation" services in terms of Section 65(39a) of Finance Act, 1994. The proceedings initiated against the appellant concluded in the impugned order. The Original Authority confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 39,24,724/-. He also imposed a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 and further penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice cannot be confirmed against Bhopal Office. The jurisdiction of Bhopal Commissioner does not extent to Jhansi in terms of the notification issued under Rule 4(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. Regarding the jurisdiction, he submitted that the appellants having registered office at Bhopal, are executing the work orders at Jhansi also. The said work order was carried out through their Jhansi office or the billing was done only from Jhansi Office will not affect on the jurisdiction to demand or to pay service tax. There is no registration by the Jhansi Branch Office with the Department. As the registered office is at Bhopal and the contracts were executed as a corporate legal entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies imposed on the appellant are to be held as non-sustainable. 6. On the question of jurisdiction, we agree with the Revenue. The appellants are having registered office at Bhopal and they are registered with the Service Tax Department at Bhopal. They do have a branch office at Jhansi but were not registered in Jhansi. The contracts were executed in the name of registered office and work executed by the appellant. The Jhansi office dealt with the billing or other connected activities does not have impact of shifting of jurisdiction regarding the appellant's liability as a party to the contract of service. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Kolhapur Vs. Helios Food Additives Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (24) STR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
