9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain information, the officers of Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi conducted verification of records of the appellant. Upon completion of enquiry, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by issue of show cause notice dated 20/04/2012 mainly on two issues. The first one is relating to non-payment of service tax on construction of complex service and second issue is irregular availment of Cenvat credit. Subsequently, similar show cause notices were issued covering later period. The cases were adjudicated by the Original Authority confirming service tax liability proposed in the show cause notices and imposing penalties on the appellant. 2. The appellants in the present two appeals strongly contested the findings of the lower auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded elaborate discussion regarding scope of Cantonment Act, 2006 function of Cantonment Board etc. to infer that the construction of residential accommodation for defence personnel would also require approval by such cantonment authorities. Accordingly, they upheld the service tax liability. In this connection, we note that during the relevant period, there were correspondence between the contractors undertaking such projects, DG (MAP) of the Defence Ministry and the CBEC on this issue. A perusal of these letters indicate that the matter was referred to the Board more than once and it was clarified vide letter dated 05/07/2006 addressed to the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi that no service tax would be leviable on construction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese complexes are built for personal use by the Ministry of Defence by allotment to married military personnel. In this connection, we rely on the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Raipur vs. P.D. Agrawal reported in - 2017 (49) S.T.R. 231 (Tri. - Del.). Similar ratio has been followed in Khurana Engineering Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in - 2011 (21) S.T.R. 115 (Tri. - Ahmd.) and a few other cases. As such, we find that there is no service tax liability for construction activities carried out by the appellant in connection with their contract with Ministry of Defence. 6. The second dispute in the present appeals relates to the correctness of Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on the basis of various disputed documents. The lower A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants have paid the entire demand alongwith interest even before the issue of show cause notice. It is also submitted that in terms of Section 73 (3) the matter should have been closed without issue of any demand. We are in agreement with the submission of the appellant on this ground. The appellants had also bonafide belief regarding this service being part of overall construction service for which they have paid service tax under WCS. As such, as the service tax amount with applicable interest has already been discharged even before the issue of show cause notice, the matter is fit for closure under Section 73 (3). 9. The fourth dispute in the present appeal is regarding service tax demanded from the appellant under the category of " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
