9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose end Service Tax liability was discharged, is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant was providing works contract service to M/s. Nirmal Ujjwal Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (NJUSPSM) but it was neither registered under Service Tax nor had paid any Service Tax for which SIV Branch of Service Tax Cell, Central Excise at Nagpur summoned the Appellant, called for necessary documents like Balance Sheet, work order, etc. and after scrutinisation of the same, they found that between the financial year 2009-10 and 2012-13 Appellant had received Rs.36,18,86,459/- amount towards works contract service but had not paid Service Tax that was calculated at Rs.1,58,48,916/-. No registration was taken or ST-3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi Vs. Melang Developers Private Limited reported in 2019-TIOL- 1684-CESTAT-DEL-LB, that was constituted for a decision on conflicting views expressed by this Tribunal on taxability on the issue involved in the present appeal, allegation of suppression of fact or mis-statement would fail for which extended period can never be invoked since the same is barred by limitation. He also argued that otherwise also when Service Tax was not collected by the Appellant but could be made taxable, then cum-tax value is to be calculated from the amount received against rendering of taxable service and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case as Appellant had not registered itself even after crossing the threshold limit and not filed any return during the relevant period for which interference in the order of the Commissioner is uncalled for. 5. We have heard the submissions and gone through the case record including relied upon judgments cited by the adversaries. We are of the considered view that after the decision of the Larger Bench rendered on the issue there can be no second opinion that Appellant is liable to discharge the Service Tax liability but in view of the clear provision made under Section 67 Clause 2 that states that where gross amount is charged by the service provider which is inclusive of Service Tax payable, the value of taxable service shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
