TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st and also imposed penalties. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for the purpose of discussion and decisions. The details of both the appeals are given here in below: SCN dated Period of demand Amount of Service Tax (Rs.) Amount of Penalty (Rs.) 23.04.2012 (i) 01.10.2006 to 2007-08. (ii) 2010-11 1,70,116.00 1,70,116.00 u/s 78 + 10,000/- each under Section 77(1) and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act) 05.10.2012 2011-2012 1,36,271.00 68,136 u/s 76 + 10,000/- each under Section 77(1) and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Act) 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant has provided Constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 76, 77(1) & 77(2) of the Act were also imposed. Aggrieved by both Order-in-Original the appellant filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeals of the appellant and confirmed the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,70,116 in ST/50101 of 2014 and Rs. 1,36,271 in ST/50102/2014. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perusal of the material on record. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedents on identical issue. He further submits that the appellant has carried out the Construction of Platforms i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 titled Mehta Construction Company Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Panchkula. 5. He further submits that the appellant is also eligible for exemption contained in Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 on the ground that service having been provided to Market committee which as per Section 18 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 is a body corporate as well as a local authority. He also submits that the demand is also hit by the bar of limitation under Section 73 of the Act. 6. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the service provided by the appellant falls under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant themselves. In the absence of such evidence, demand can be sustained only on the basis of averment on the part of the appellant that they have also supplied the operators of the machinery. It is not coming forth in the impugned order as to whether the appellant was paying the wages to the operators and were having effective control of the goods supplied by them. In the absence of the same, demand cannot be sustained. 8. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Arvindra Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Chandigarh vide Final Order No. 62732/2018 dated 31.08.20218 has held in para 5 as under: "5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industry or any other business or profession. In that circumstance, in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the services provided to these organizations under contracts mentioned at Serial No 1 to 12 (except serial No. 2 and 3) are exempted from payment of duty. With regard to services provided to Guru Granth Sahib University and M/s. HP Singh and others, we find that work was completed before the negative list regime and the service has been provided by the appellant along with goods. In that circumstance, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro (supra), merit classification of the said services under Works Contract, therefore, demand of service tax is not sustainable unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|