9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of street lights being an independent service clearly falls under works contract service and during the relevant period it was taxable - demand upheld. Time limitation - Held that: - firstly appellant had not declared the transaction in their ST-3 return subsequently despite knowing the taxability of the said service, they have not come forward and informed to the department regarding the provision of service. In these circumstances there is a clear suppression of fact on the part of the appellant - extended period rightly invoked. As regard the claim of the appellant that certain services like laying of cable shifting of cable for the purpose of widening of road etc. a service tax demand of ₹ 8919/- is not sustainable - Hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of equal amount under Section 78 however no penalty was imposed under Section 76. Penalty of ₹ 40,000/- was also imposed for failure to submit correct details/information in the ST.3 return. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, appellant filed this appeal. 2. Shri Shankar Patil, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the demand was mainly raised in respect of installation of street light. He submits that such service is in relation to road. The service in relation to road is not taxable under the works contract service therefore demand is not sustainable. He further submits that the service on which demand was raised also included the various other service such as laying of electric cables between grids ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice for the earlier period was issued but the appellant for the subsequent period did not disclose the transaction of the service of installation of street lights in their ST-3 Return. Therefore the department had no occasion to know whether the appellant have rendered any other taxable service other than the service declared in ST-3 Returns, therefore there is a clear suppression of fact. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. The only defence of the appellant as regard the service of installation of street lights is that the service is related to the road therefore it is excluded from the taxable service under the head of works contract. We do not agree with this submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is a clear suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. As per the above observation, we uphold the demand of service tax in respect of installation of street lights under the head of works contract on merit as well as on limitation. 5. As regard the claim of the appellant that certain services like laying of cable shifting of cable for the purpose of widening of road etc. a service tax demand of ₹ 8919/- is not sustainable. We agree that such service is not taxable as per the Board Circular No. 123/05/2010 dt. 24.5.2010 which is extract below: 3. The taxable status of various activities, on which disputes have arisen Based on the foregoing, the following would be the tax status of some of the activities in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial or industrial construction' or 'construction of complex' service [section 65(105) (zzq)/(zzzh)], as the case may be. 7. Installation of street lights, traffic lights flood lights, or other electrical and electronic appliances/devices or providing electric connections to them Taxable service, namely Erection, commissioning or installation services [section 65 (105] (zzd]. 8. Railway electrification, electrification along the railway track Not a taxable service under any clause of sub-section (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 4. The conclusions drawn above are essentially general in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
