9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMIX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is not put to notice for demand of Service Tax specifying the correct classification, show cause notice proposing demand for under wrong head the demand cannot be sustained. Since, the issue involved is interpretation of classification of service and admittedly service work provided to the Government Authority and Public Sector undertaking, the appellant s bona fide belief that the activity is not liable to Service Tax cannot be doubted with. The service were provided to Government Agency the transaction cannot be hidden hence the suppression of fact with mala fide intention to evade payment of Service Tax does not exist in the present case. Accordingly, the demand for the extended period is also hit by limitation. Thus, the demand of Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he services of the Appellant were in fact, in relation to transmission and distribution of electricity and therefore, the same were exempted from levy of service tax in terms of Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010. Accordingly, for the services provided to GETCO, no service tax was discharged by the Appellant. 1.3. In addition to the above, during the relevant period, the Appellant was also providing construction services to the local Municipality i.e. Patan Municipality/ Mahanagar Palika. The nature of work in this case was rubble stone pitching surrounding the Gudhadi Lake. The Appellant did not discharge any service tax in respect of the said services also on the bona fide belief that the services were not for commercial purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 78,09,657/- along with the applicable interest and penalty vide OIO No. AHM-EXCUS-003-COM-036-14-15 dated 25.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order ). 1.9. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 25.03.2015 has preferred the present appeal on the detailed grounds as detailed in the appeal memo. 2. Shri Jigar Shah learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made the following submissions : - A.1. The Appellant at the outset submits that the services provided by it are neither classifiable under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service nor under the category of 'Works Contract Service' bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out by GETCO and therefore, the said services are not classifiable under both the categories i.e. Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' and 'Works Contract Service'. A.6. Similarly, the Patan Municipality is also is engaged in providing basic civic amenities to the public at large and for the same the Municipality had engaged the Appellant to provide services and therefore, the said services also cannot be said to be in relation to commerce or industry and therefore, again the services provided by the Appellant are not classifiable under both the categories i.e. Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' and 'Works Contract Service'. A.7. In light of the above submissions, the Impugned Order is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsibility of the same lies with the Department and not the assessee. The responsibility of the assessee is limited to the filing of his Return and nothing more is required of him. Therefore, in such cases, the Department cannot allege suppression of facts and invoke the extended period of limitation. B.4. In light of the detailed findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the above decision, it is submitted that once the Appellant duly files the Returns, the onus is on the officers of the Department to scrutinize such Returns properly. The onus of any loss to the Revenue in such cases is upon the officers and not the Appellant because the Appellant is not an expert and merely because the tax paid is self-assessed does not mean that in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led law that even though the activity of the assesse is taxable but if the assessee is not put to notice for demand of Service Tax specifying the correct classification, show cause notice proposing demand for under wrong head the demand cannot be sustained, in this regard we relied upon the following judgments :- Sandeep Sobti Vs CCE 2008 (11) STR 115 (T) Sima Engg. Constructions Vs CCE 2011 (21) STR 179 (T) Kedar Construction Vs CCE 2015 (37) STR 631 (T) GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd Vs CGST 2023 (8) TMI 995- CESTAT Dinesh Chandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd Vs CGST 2023 (11) TMI 1080-CESTAT Jija Builders Vs CCE 2018 (4) TMI 730-CESTAT B. R. Kohli Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs CST 2017 (4) TMI 38-CESTAT From the above decision it is the settled law that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
