9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on account of limitation by providing various documentary evidence before the Adjudicating Authority. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned OIO, dropped the demand to the extent of Rs.73,07,023/-. He confirmed the demand of Rs.25,70,758. Being aggrieved by the confirmed demand, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the dropped demand of Rs.73,07,023/-, the Revenue is before the Tribunal with their Appeal. We have taken up both the Appeals together for disposal. 2. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant Assessee, submits that they had provided all the documentary evidence in the form of their P & L Account, Balance Sheet, ST Returns, CA Certificate etc., along with complete Reconciliation Statement to the Adjudicating Authority. He draws our attention to page No. 22 & 23 of the OIO, wherein the Adjudicating Authority has reproduced these details by way of Table towards reconciliation shown by them with proper Chartered Accountant's Certificate. The Learned Advocate submits that after going through the documentary evidence placed in each and every case, the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand of Rs.73,07,023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard both sides and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Coming to the Appeal filed by the Revenue, a cursory glance of the Show Cause Notice would clarify that the same was issued for the period which is even beyond the extended period of five years. This shows that the proper care was not taken by the Department while issuing the Show Cause Notice. The Show Cause Notice has been issued merely on the ground that the income shown by the Appellant in their P & L Account is higher than the turnover declared in the ST 3 Return. The Appellant has submitted a detailed Reconciliation Statement duly certified by the Chartered Accountant which has been taken on record by the Adjudicating Authority at Page 22 & 23 of the OIO. It is also seen from the discussion and findings given by the Adjudicating Authority that he has properly verified the documentary evidence while coming to his conclusion. Some of his important findings are given as under:- It is noted that Technical Tasting and Analysis Service became taxable with effect from 01.07.2003, Survey and Map Making Service came under the purview of Service Tax on 16.06.2005, Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earth Moving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 amounted to Rs.56,64,908/-. The said assessee has submitted copies of some bills, measurement sheets and payment details. There is nothing on record to controvert the claim of the said assessee regarding deduction of the said amount from the differential amounts. On the basis of the said Statement (certified by CA) and the documents submitted by the said assessee deduction of Rs.56,64,908/- spread over the material period is allowable from the actual receipts, survey and Map Making Service and Site formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition Service came under the purview of Service Tax from 16.06.2005. Receipts against the said services rendered prior to 16.06.2005 were not taxable. The said assessee has adduced Annexure signed by CA containing Job Nos. amounts received (year wise), copies of some bills and payment details. Considering the above position of law, documents and Annexure, receipts against the said services amounting to Rs.1,61,30,030/- and Rs.41,55,866/- are to be deducted from the differential amounts to arrive at the differential value of taxable services. Provisions in relation to Service Tax apply to the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificates for the gross value of Rs.1,15,21,446/- from their principal consultant to the effect that they already paid Service Tax on their output services. An amount of Rs.60,45,279/- received from HSCL for providing service in respect of construction of roads and bridges. They have argued that the amount of Rs.60,45,279/- cannot be taxed for the reason that the contract was executed by them as sub-consultant and secondly the services were related to construction of roads and bridges which cannot be taxed under the Act. It is found that in the Circular No.96/6/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007, it is clarified that a sub-contractor is essentially a service provider, therefore the sub-contractor is required to charge Service Tax to the main contractor. In view of the above, it cannot be said that Survey and Map Making Service provided to HSCL in respect of construction of roads and bridges is excluded from the purview of Service Tax. The above deliberation leads to the conclusion that Rs.2,16,23,888/- received by the said assessee by way of providing service as sub-contractor/subconsultant during the material period is taxable. It is found that uniform tax rate was not applicable d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand prior to 22/08/2007 is legally not sustainable. 10. We also note that the Appellant has obtained Service Tax Registration in October 2003 and has been filing their Returns regularly. The Department in its over-enthusiasm has issued the Show Cause Notice even for the period prior to five years. The Show Cause Notice has been issued for Rs.98.77 Lakhs whereas after thorough verification and reconciliation, the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand of Rs.73.07 Lakhs. Even in respect of balance 25.7 Lakhs confirmed demand, we find that the clarification given on 23/08/2007 has been applied for the transaction carried out between April 2006 to 31/03/2008. Therefore, we hold that the demand for the extended period is legally not sustainable and confirmed demand for the extended period is set aside on account of limitation also. 11. As a result, we hold that the Appellant is required to pay the Service Tax on sub-contract work (map making) undertaken by them for the main contractor between the period October 2007 to March 2008 only. It is noted from the OIO that the amounts paid by the assesse during the proceedings have been appropriated. The amount payable, if any, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
