9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of audit of accounts of the Appellant for the period July 2007 to Marc h 2012 by the officers of Central Excise and Service Tax, Commissionerate Kanpur, it was observed by the officers that the Appellant were providing taxable services to various clients viz M/s BHEL Jhansi, M/s Utility Energy Tech & Engineers Pvt. Ltd, M/s Tata Projects Ltd, Kota Rajasthan; M/s Areva T & D" India Ltd., Noida Reliance etc. under works contract given by these firms, without issuing invoice or any other document in lieu of services provided to its clients as laid down under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2. On enquiry, the Appellant vide letter received on 03/02/2012, informed the department that measurement of work was done by their site su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2010, 25.4.2011 and 25.10.2011 in support of their having filed/sent the returns for the period ending Mar'10-Mar'11 and Sep' 11 respectively. From the perusal of year wise payment sheets produced by the Appellant, it was confirmed that they had paid Service Tax on payments received from their service recipients @ 4.08% 4.12%, 12.24%, 12.36% (during financial, year 2007-08); 2.12%, 4.12%, 4.08%, 12,36%, 10-30% (during the financial year 2008-09), 4.08%, 4.12%, 10 30% (during the financial year 2009-10), 4.12%, 10.30% (during the financial year 2010-11 and 10.30% (during the financial year 2011-12). As observed by the officers, service Tax at the aforesaid rated was paid by the Appellant only on a part of payment received for providing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Appellant, instead of following a uniform structure, sometimes paid service tax @ 4.12% under composite scheme and sometimes paid service tax at full rate. It was further alleged that the Appellant had neither opted for composite scheme as required under para 3 of the said notification 32/2007-ST dated 22/05/2007 nor remained under this scheme for entire contract as evident from the ST-3 returns. Even in the cases where service tax was paid under composite scheme, it was not paid on the gross amount received by them as provided under Para 4 of the above Notification. According to the department, the Appellant were not entitled for benefit under composite scheme, in terms of Notification No.32/2007-ST dated 22.5.2007. 7. Consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant that in cases where the material was supplied by the recipient of the service, the said value was not to be included for assessing the tax liability. The reasoning advanced by the department was that the Appellant failed to produce any evidence in support of their claim and even if it was presumed that the material was supplied, the exemption for this value from gross value was not available as per Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. 8. Heard the parties. As the impugned order is ex-parte, and appellant had sought time by filling representation and no opportunity was allowed to file written submission and evidence. We find there is Violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Also law on works contract stands clari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
