9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... road lightening, electrical sub-station and various installation activities. The revenue initiated certain enquiry against the appellant for non-payment of Service Tax. Based on available documents on completion of enquiry, show cause notice dated 08/02/2012 was issued to the appellant. The notice alleged that the appellants did not discharge due Service Tax on various taxable services rendered by them during the period 2005-06 to 2009-10. A total demand of Rs. 1,49,90,073/- was made in the notice. The notice alleged that the appellants are liable to tax under two main tax entries namely Management Maintenance or Repair Service and Erection Commissioning and Installation Service. 2. The case was adjudicated by the Original Authority resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies. d. By allowing abatment for tax liability under Erection Commissioning and Installation Service the revenue admitted that these are contract with supply of materials. As such these contracts cannot be taxed in category other than works contract service. As no perusal has been made to tax under Works Contract Service, no demand can be sustained. e. The Ld. Consultant submitted that considering disputes involved in composite Works Contract prior to decision of Supreme Court of India, the appellants could not be charged with suppression etc for invoking extended period. Even for the demand presently made has gone beyond even beyond five years i.e. covering period 01/04/2005 to 30/09/2005. In any case this period can never be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is submitted that even after initiation of enquiry the appellant did not cooperate and submit documents. It is not open to them to claim bonafideness for non-payment of service tax payable therein. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. Admittedly, in the present case the appellants have executed numerous contracts for variety of work. At the time of issuing show cause notice the details of these contracts were not made available to the revenue in spite of repeated requests. Now, the appellant is taking a plea that the show cause notice is vague and without any specific quantification for each taxable service. We note that the appellants did submit all the contract's details before the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving supply materials along with provisions of service are liable to Service Tax only w.e.f. 1/06/2007. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be applied to various contracts which are now in dispute, wherever relevant. 9. Regarding the tax liability of the appellant on MMR Service we note a total tax of Rs. 63,45,604/- was confirmed under this category. The plea of the appellant is that many of the contracts will not come under MMR service for tax liability. There argument is that the contracts with reference to immovable property like non- commercial buildings, roads shall not be liable to tax due to exemption given retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2012. It is pleaded that this aspect has not been examined categorically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
