9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at boundary wall is not a part of the building nor is it a civil structure. This submission cannot be accepted. A boundary wall is invariably a part of the building or a civil structure. It needs to be noted that service tax was payable not only when the entire building or a civil structure is built but it was also payable when a part of it is built - the submission of the appellant that the boundary wall is not a part of the building and is also not a civil structure, cannot be agreed upon. Therefore, regarding the demand on merits, the issue is decided against appellant. Extended period of Limitation - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- During investigation itself, the appellant agreed and paid the service tax. Had the appellant be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Shri Naubir Alvi , Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S K Meena , Authorised Representative ORDER P V SUBBA RAO : 1. M/s. Engineering India the appellant . filed this appeal to assail the Order in Appeal dated 29.11.2017 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal whereby he upheld the Order in Original OIO dated 27.8.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner and rejected the appeal filed by appellant. 2. The appellant is registered with the Service Tax department for providing works contract service . Receiving intelligence that the appellant was not paying service tax correctly, the officers of the preventive branch of the Commissionerate visited the appellant on 26.3.2009 to investigate the matter. During investigation, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Boundary wall is not a part of the building nor is it a civil structure or a part of the building or civil structure and therefore, it was not covered by the clause. Therefore, no service tax was payable at all; (iii) Extended period of limitation was not invokable in this case; (iv) The appellant may be refunded the amounts already paid; (v) All penalties also need to be set aside; and (vi) The impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. Submissions by the department 6. Learned authorised representative vehemently supported the impugned order and asserted that it calls for no interference. Findings 7. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the Revenue. 8. The appellant is contesting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the responsibility of the department to scrutinise them with the records and raise a demand. The appellant in this case neither disclosed the rendering of this service nor paid service tax on it nor filed the returns. This qualifies as suppression of facts with intent to evade payment. Therefore, the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked in this case. 10. The appellant s third contention is against the imposition of penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. Whenever any service tax is not paid by reason of fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of service tax, penalty under section 78 can be imposed. In ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
