9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/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,' 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' and 'Works Contract Service'. The scrutiny of the documents including balance sheet and return in the Form 26AS as required under Income Tax Act, 1962 was undertaken by Revenue in respect of the service provider. Revenue came to know that service provider was providing services to Ghaziabad Development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the authorities to whom services were provided were not governmental authorities. It appear to Revenue that during the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16 service provider should have paid service tax of around Rs. 25 crores and whereas service provider had paid service tax of Rs. 11.33 crores and therefore through the show cause notice dated 20/10/2016 issued to service provider Revenue raised demand of service tax of Rs. 13.66 crores under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 under extended period of limitation 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and deducted the considerations received by service provider in respect of work carried out for construction of roads, railways, Rajiv Awaas Yojana and services provided to Governmental Authorities and arrived at net taxable value for each financial year. Subsequently he applied the rate of tax of such arrived value and came to conclusion that service provider was required to pay service tax of around Rs. 13.97 crores during the said period and held that service provider had paid service tax of Rs. 13.54 crores and therefore confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 43,15,046/- with equal penalty and interest on the same. The Original Authority through impugned order also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,500/- for late filing of ST-3 returns. Aggrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k undertaken was with material and there was no transfer of property in goods involved and as such the service provider was entitled to benefit of Notification No.01/2006 dated 01/03/2006. She further contended that the demand is barred by limitation as period involved in the present case is April, 2011 to June, 2012 and the show cause notice was issued on 20/10/2016 and that service provider was under the bona fide belief that such services were exempted in terms of Notification No.25/2012 dated 20/06/2012. She further submitted that there was no positive evidence of suppression or misstatement on the part of the service provider as all the information was taken from balance sheet, ledger account and Form 26AS maintained by the service pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of demand was for Rs. 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. The learned counsel for service provider has relied on the Final Order of this Tribunal in the case of Bajarang Lal Shrimal Engineers & Contractors. We also note from said Para-26 of Order-in-Original that all the figures of gross receipts were taken from the records like Form 26AS statement, balance sheet and Ledger accounts. We note that in the said Final Order in the case of Bajarang Lal Shrimal Engineers & Contractors this Tribunal has held as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
