9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstructed under “Works Contract” for the welfare of weaker section of the society cannot be held to be intended for commerce or industry. Time Limitation - Held that:- All the facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue and no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant - extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/99/2012-CU[DB] - 72216/2018 - Dated:- 14-9-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) For the Appellants : Shri G.K. Sarkar (Adv.) Prashant Srivastava (Adv.) For the Respondent : Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR ORDER PER: ARCHANA WADHWA Vide the present impugned order Commissioner of Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instant case, the activities undertaken by the appellant is an activity by a Government Body/Public Authority to another Government Body/Public Authority in furtherance of discharging statutory/sovereign function of State. Hence, it is not liable to Service Tax. Reliance is placed on CBEC s Circular No.89/7/2006-ST dated 18/12/2006 and case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation reported in 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 372 (Bom.), Employee Provident Fund Organization vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi reported in 2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 294 (Tri.-Del.), Sikkim Nationalized Transport vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Siliguri reported in 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 397 (Tri.-Kolkata), Instrum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also stands assailed on the point of limitation inasmuch as the same stand raised by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 21/10/2010 for the period 2005-06 to 31/03/2010. Learned advocate submits that the entire demand confirmed against the appellant in the instant case is time barred. It is pertinent to mention that the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Noida issued a show cause notice to the appellant on 17/10/2008 raising a demand of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 25,11,112/- on the activities undertaken by the appellant for Noida Authority for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08 under the category of Consulting Engineer s Services invoking extended period of limitation. The show cause notice was replied by the appellant vide rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edabad reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R. 671 affirmed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Vijay Travels reported in 2004 (36) S.T.R. 513 (Guj.), Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.), Caprihans India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.), ECS Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C.) and Kirlburn Engg. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 285 (Tr.-Ahmd.). The Hon ble Allahabad High Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax vs. Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (35) S.T.R. 177 (All.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. Apart from holding in favour of the appellant on merits, we also agree with learned advocate that the demand of tax having been raised beyond the normal period of limitation is time barred inasmuch as admittedly the appellants were earlier issued a show cause notice on 17/10/2008 raising service tax demand in respect of the same activity, although under a different category of consulting engineer s service. As such all the facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue and no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant. Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.) as also the other decision referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate are fully applicable to the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
