9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rajesh Chhibber learned Advocate appearing for the service provider and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh learned Superintendent Authorised Representative appearing for Revenue, we note that the service provider were engaged in providing various services related to construction and laying of pipelines and laying of drainage and also 'Works Contract Service' and 'Erection Commission And Installation Service'. They provided services to Ghaziabad Development Authority, U.P. Jal-Nigam and various other Government Authorities. Proceedings were initiated against the service provider for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014 by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994. The service provider is challenging the confirmation of demand of around Rs. 65 lakhs along with penalty. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, we note that the Original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 64,22,925/- on account of construction of 33 and 11 KVA electric substations at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad and imposed equal penalty. Further, he has confirmed service tax demand of around Rs. 1.55 lakhs for construction of Boundary wall and imposed equal penalty. In so for as the demand and penalty in respect of electric Substations is concern, the learned Counsel has relied on earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Shiv Shankar Electricals And Contractors Vs Commissioner of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period earlier than 01.07.2012 and also that the Notification No.25/2012-ST was not a blanket notification. On perusal of Order-in-Original, we note that the learned Original Adjudicating Authority has carefully examined each and every contract and given his finding as to how the services provided by the service provider were covered separately for the period prior to 01.07.2012 and subsequent to the period 01.07.2012 through Notification No.25/2012-ST and various decisions of this Tribunal and other Appellate Authorities, Notifications and CBEC's Circulars. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by revenue.
6. Appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
