9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore is exempted from levy of service tax. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijayadeepa Constructions Private Limited (supra) had considered the very same issue and set aside the demand for the period prior to 01.07.2012. Thus, we are of the opinion that the demand for the period up to 01.07.2012 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 - The appellant having paid the amount before passing of the adjudication order and also having co-operated with the Department in providing all details, we find that there has been no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Even in the Show Cause Notice, it is merely alleged that the appellant has suppressed the fact of providing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visited the site at which the appellant was rendering construction services and collected details. The officers also visited the premises of the appellant and scrutinized the records. It came to the notice of the Department that the appellant has provided service to Titan Education Trust for construction of NPR College of Engineering and Technology and also to Prist Trust for construction of Prist University, Tanjore. After 2013, the appellant commenced constructing a factory for M/s. Sai Biogrow India Pvt. Limited., which is a commercial activity. The appellant though obtained service tax registration on 11.02.2013 had not filed any ST-3 returns. After investigations, Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2014 was issued proposing to demand the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. It is also pointed out by the Ld. Counsel that the huge demand is totally erroneous as the same has been quantified by the Department without granting abatement for the period prior to 01.07.2012. If benefit of abatement is granted for the use of materials, the amount would be very less. 2.2 For the period after 01.07.2012 up to 31.03.2013, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant is not contesting this demand on merits. The appellant has actually paid the entire service tax to the tune of Rs.27,63,797/- (before issuance of Show Cause Notice) and Rs.6,12,595/- (after the issuance of Show Cause Notice). This demand has been quantified by the Department after allowing abatement. The appellant having paid major part of the demand much ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Authorised Representative Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared and argued for the Department. It is submitted by the Ld. Authorised Representative that the Department has quantified the demand after 01.07.2012, giving the benefit of abatement as the contract was of composite in nature using materials as well as rendition of service. The non-payment of service tax would not have come to light but for the verification done by the Department. Therefore, the penalties imposed are legal and proper. The Ld. Authorised Representative prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issues to be decided are (i) whether the demand raised for the period prior to 01.07.2012, on construction services done for educational purposes is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, or to be used for commerce or industry. The information about this has to be gathered from the approved plan of the building or civil construction. Such constructions which are for the use of organizations or institutions being established solely for educational, religious, charitable, health, sanitation or philanthropic purposes and not for the purposes of profit are not taxable, being non-commercial in nature. Generally, government buildings or civil constructions are used for residential, office purposes or for providing civic amenities. Thus, normally government constructions would not be taxable. However, if such constructions are for commercial purposes like local government bodies getting shops constructed for letting them out, su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no other positive act or willful suppression brought out by the Department. In such circumstances and taking note of the fact that the appellant has paid the entire service tax before passing of the adjudication order, we are of the opinion that the penalty imposed under Section 78 alone requires to be set aside. The penalty under Section 77 is upheld. The order of appropriation of the amount already paid by the appellant is also sustained. 7. In view thereof, the impugned order is modified to the extent of:- i. setting aside the demand, interest and penalties for the period from 01.10.2008 to 30.06.2012. ii. the demand of service tax along with interest for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 is upheld. iii. the penalties impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
