9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 3,02,906/- against the appellant for the period 2007-2008 to 2008-2009 along with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the appellant is engaged in providing services of "maintenance and repair" and "commercial and industrial construction" and had provided such services to Nagar Palika Garhakota and M/s M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation, Jabalpur and had not taken service tax registration nor paid service tax on the amounts received towards such services. A show cause notice dated 08.04.2010 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Jabalpur calling upon the appellant to explain why the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commercial Construction Services rendered to Nagar Palika Garhakota 13,55,970 Less : Abatement of 67% (9,08,499) Net Receipt 4,47,471 Add : Repair and Maintenance Services to M/s M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation, Jabalpur 1,95,722 Total Taxable Services 6,43,193 FY 2008-2009 Gross Receipt in respect of Commercial Construction Services rendered to Nagar Palika Garhakota 8,11,317 Less : Abatement of 67% (5,43,582) Net Receipt 2,67,735 Add : Repair and Maintenance Services to M/s M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation, Jabalpur 87,684 Total Taxable Services 3,55,419 5. He further submits that even if the abatement is not considered at all, the total receipts during the year 2008-2009 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the appellant by the commercial tax officers of the State. However, none of these documents could correlate and substantiate that the work orders received by the appellant and amounts paid to him were for composite works contract. 9. The first issue is whether the appellant is entitled to abatement of 67% from the gross amount received for commercial construction services from the Nagar Palika as claimed. 10. The appellant had made this claim before the Original Authority who recorded as follows :- "15. In the instant case the party has not submitted any work orders/invoices/bills which could show that the gross amount charged by the party included the value of material. The party has themselves submitted a copy of vat registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also failed to submit the ST-3 return under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus I find that the appellant neither furnished any work order/contract issued by the service receiver to them at the time of adjudication proceeding nor during the appeal proceedings. In the present facts and circumstances of the case is clearly violative of fulfillment of the conditions of the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 and thus the abatement is not available to the appellant and they are required to pay service tax on the taxable value of Rs. 21,67,287/- realized on account of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service". 12. The appellant could not satisfy either the Original Authority or the Commissioner (Appeals) that the amount recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
