9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial both, whether the appellant has paid the State VAT, etc. Therefore, since the aspects of work contract service has not been examined properly by the Adjudicating Authority, the entire matter needs to be reconsidered. As regard the appellant s claim that the Adjudicating Authority has given hypothetical finding that the appellant could have entered in a single contract i.e. construction of building and road - in this regard prima facie view is that the finding of the adjudicating authority in this regard is not correct. For the purpose of levy of service tax individual contract has to be taken in account. Accordingly, the service tax demand can be determined. Therefore, merely on assumption that the appellant have entered into two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in demanding service tax and consequent penalty on Earth work under the heading site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition service, when such an activity involved levelling of ground by supplying mud and therefore, qualifying as a works contract service involving both material and service. (iv) Whether larger period of limitation can be invoked and penalty under Section 78 on account of suppression of facts could have been imposed when in the SCN and in the impugned order (see para no.28.5 (iii), page no.256 of the appeal paper book) there is a clear finding to the effect that the activity of construction of road was shown as exempted by the Appellant in its ST-3 returns. 2. Shri Ramnath Prabhu, L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Northern Plastics Ltd. vs. CCE, 1988 (101) ELT 549 (SC) Warner Hindustan Ltd Vs. Collector of Central Excise Hyderabad, (1999) 6 SCC 762 Commissioner of C.Ex. Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 592 3. Shri Rajesh Nathan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the appellant heavily claimed that service in question provided by them falls under Works Contract Service and for the reason the same is not taxable under commercial or industrial construction service . However, the aspect that whether service is classifiable under work contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
