9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant has been providing the services of Maintenance and Repair Service, Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and taken service tax registration in November 2004. However, they have neither paid service tax nor filed service tax returns till audit was conducted in November 2006. They have filed ST-3 returns for the period April 2003 to September 2007 on 25.10.2007. They have paid service tax along with education cess amounting to Rs. 44,06,274/-. They have also paid late fee of Rs.14,000/- @Rs.2000/- per return. The appellant has calculated the above tax liability after availing the abatements provided under Notification No. 15/2004 dated 10.09.2004 for Maintenance and Repair service and Notification No. 1/2006 dated 01/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Notification No. 15/2004 dated 10.09.2004 for Maintenance and Repair service and Notification No. 01/2006 dated 01/03/2006 for Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and deposited the same in the Government account. They have paid the interest for the delayed payment and late fee for the delay in filing the returns. Accordingly, they submitted that the demand of service tax along with interest and imposition of penalties under Sections 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not sustainable. They also submitted that the audit was conducted in November 2006 and the Show Cause Notice demanding service tax for the period April 2003 to September 2007 was issued only on 21.10.2008. Accordingly, they contended that most of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x confirmed in the impugned order under the categories of Maintenance and Repair service, Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, provided with material, is not sustainable. In respect of the cases where Repair and Maintenance service was done by the appellant without materials, they have charged service tax on the full value without claiming any abatement. In respect of all these services, the appellant has collected the service tax from their clients under the category of Maintenance and Repair service, Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and paid the same to the Department. Hence, the service tax collected and paid by them to the Department is not liable for refund to them. Accordingly, we hold that the demand of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- per return. The appellant has calculated the above tax liability after availing the abatements provided under Notification No. 15/2004 dated 10.09.2004 for Maintenance and Repair service and Notification No. 1/2006 dated 01/03/2006 for Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, as they have provided such services with materials. In respect of the cases where Repair and Maintenance service was done without materials, the appellant has charged service tax on the full value without claiming any abatement. Thus, we observe that the notice itself need not have been issued as per the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, we hold that the penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
