9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 43 lakhs and there is no information about service tax paid during the year 2011-12 therefore the contention of the learned counsel for service provider that the demand for the period from April, 2011 to June, 2012 is barred by limitation is worth consideration. - APPEAL Nos. ST/70442 & 70543/2017-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NOs. - 70465-70466/2019 - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Ms. Rinki Arora (Advocate) for Service Provider Shri Shiv Pratap Singh (Dy. Commr.) AR for Revenue ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Appeals bearing numbers ST/70442/2017-CU[DB] ST/70543/2017-CU[DB] are taken together for disposal since both are arising out of a common impugned Order-in-Original No.12/COMM/CEX/GZB/2016-17 dated 31/03/2017 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Ghaziabad. Appeal No.ST/70543/2017 is filed by Revenue and the other appeal is filed by M/s Manisha Projects Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as Service provider. 2. Brief facts of the case are that service provider was engaged in providing services such as Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion for the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16. Further there were other proposals for imposition of penalties. The service provider submitted their reply dated 01/02/2017 to the said show cause notice and informed that it was not correct that during the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16 service provider had paid ₹ 11.33 crores whereas in fact they had paid service tax of ₹ 13.54 crores. They further contended that valuation under Composition Scheme as proposed in the show cause notice was not proper because they had not given any such option and for the period prior 01/07/2012 activities carried out by them were appropriately classifiable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Services and Construction of Residential Complex Services and they were eligible for abatement sought by them. They further pointed out that the said show cause notice also included Construction of roads, drains, canals etc. for demand of service tax whereas the law related to service tax had clearly laid down that service tax was not payable on services for construction of roads, drains, canals etc. They further stated that governmental authorities such as GNIDA, UPRNNL, KDA and IRCON Internation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Article 243W, ibid, as listed in the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution but what is material is that unlike Municipalities none of these projects are initiated or conceptualized by them and their construction work in respect of such projects is undertaken only pursuant to the specific award of said work to them by the Government/Entities/Agencies having ownership of the projects in response to the bids submitted by them for these projects. In other words while similar projects are also executed by Municipalities, however, they do it for themselves in the area of their jurisdiction pursuant to their responsibilities to carry out the functions entrusted to them as, mentioned in the Twelfth Schedule, ibid, on the other hand the projects executed by UPRNNL, and IRCON fall under their Commercial/Business functioning and are undertaken for other entities/agencies . 3. Heard the learned A.R. for Revenue who has presented the said ground of appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for service provider who has submitted that Original Authority has rightly held that the entities like GNIDA, UPRNNL, KDA and IRCON International Ltd. are governmental authorities. She has further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y limitation. She further contended that it was held in the case of Bajarang Lal Shrimal Engineers Contractors that where the demand is based on information appearing in balance sheet, allegation of suppression of such information is not sustainable as balance sheet of the company is a publicly available document. She further submitted that appellant had filed ST-3 returns and was regularly paying service tax to the tune of ₹ 13 crores. 7. Heard learned representative for Revenue who has submitted that the Original Authority has calculated the amount payable on the basis of all the available evidence. 8. We have carefully gone through the submission from both the sides and perused the record. In Para-25 and 26 of the impugned order Original Authority has held that during the period from April, 2011 to March, 2016 service provider was liable to pay service tax of ₹ 13.97 crores and during the same period service provider had paid service tax of ₹ 13.54 crores and therefore service provider was liable to pay service tax of ₹ 43 lakhs. He has not clarified as to which financial year the said demand pertains from the table available at Para-25.1 of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
