9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents/details for verification such as ST-2, ST-3 returns, copies of contract/work orders executed in respect of maintenance repair services, Erection Commissioning Services Works Contract Services, Balance Sheets, ITR, and other details for the financial years 2007-08 to 2011-12 - the department concluded their investigations purely on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant. The argument of the Ld Counsel does not carry much weight in the light of repeated instances of non-cooperative attitude displayed by the appellant. This submission of the Ld. counsel cannot be accepted. A perusal of the said notice makes it clear that the department has sought to classify the activity as Erection Commissioning and/or Works Contract. This factual issue would have been clear had the appellant shared the details of the contracts and work orders with the department - as per section 65(105)(zzzza), Works Contract means a contract wherein, there is transfer of property in goods involved which is leviable to VAT, and such contract includes, inter alia, erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered with the Service Tax Department (w.e.f. 10.08.2006) under the taxable category of 'Management Maintenance or Repair Services ('MMR'), Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services ('ECIS') and Works Contract Services ('WCS)'. During the period in dispute i.e., 2008-09 to 2012-13, the Appellant was engaged in the supply, erection, installation, testing and commissioning of firefighting systems, wet riser systems (equipment used to supply water through in-built water distribution systems within buildings for fire-fighting purposes) and sprinkler systems (used for supplying water at time of fire emergencies) to various divisions of PWD and CPWD for Government Buildings against the work orders awarded to the appellant. An investigation was initiated against the appellant vide letter dated 09.08.2012 and various documents were called upon by the Department. On scrutiny of documents/records submitted by the appellant, it was alleged that the appellant is supplying, testing, and commissioning of fire fighting equipments, wet riser system, sprinkler system etc. to various division of PWD and CPWD and the said work appears to be taxable under 'ECI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled the present appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the SCN I issued by the Department is vague and arbitrary in nature as the same fails to mention specific category of service under which the demand is proposed and vide other two SCNs and OIO, the demand was proposed under ECIS but confirmed under WCS respectively. No specific taxable category of service is mentioned in the SCN. In absence of specific allegation by the department, the SCN and OIO are vague, hence Impugned Order confirming demand under 'WCS' is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the allegation put forth by the department while proposing and confirming service tax demand should be clear and specific. It is a settled principle of law that the onus is on the Department to issue show cause notice after full investigation and make precise allegations in the show cause notice, otherwise it will suffer from legal infirmity. In this regard, Ld. Counsel relied upon the following judgments: M/s. Shubham Electricals Versus CST ST, Rohtak dated 16.06.2015 cited as 2015 (6) TMI 786-CESTAT New Delhi - Affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi M/s Varun Associates Vs. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted as MANU/CC/0150/2018 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the demand amounting to Rs. 5,32,187/- for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 is liable to be dropped as the appellant has rendered services by way of installation and commissioning of fire fighting equipments, sprinkler system etc. to PWD and CPWD, which is a Department of Government, and the said activity is exempted from service tax vide entry 12 of the N. No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. He further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 stating that the said services are exempted from service tax. The same analogy should be adopted for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013, hence the demand for the said period is liable to be dropped. 7. As regards the demand confirmed under MMR demand Rs. 1,29,143/- the Ld. Counsel submitted that maintenance charges received during the period 2008-09 from CPWD/PWD towards the maintenance services had been carried out in respect of non-commercial Government buildings. Therefore, the said charges are not eligible to service tax in view of retrospective exemption provided by virtue of Section 98 of the Finance Act, 1994. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and the Post Negative regime with effect from 01.07.2012. 10.1 We find that the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the first show cause notice issued by the department is vague and arbitrary in nature as the same fails to mention specific category of service under which the demand is proposed. A perusal of the said SCN indicates that the department had gathered intelligence that the appellant was executing contracts with different Government agencies and providing taxable services, but not discharging his service tax liability. During investigations, the appellant was asked to submit requisite documents/details for verification such as ST-2, ST-3 returns, copies of contract/work orders executed in respect of maintenance repair services, Erection Commissioning Services Works Contract Services, Balance Sheets, ITR, and other details for the financial years 2007-08 to 2011-12. However, the notice goes on to state that the appellant did not respond to the earlier letter and the subsequent two reminders. Subsequently, summons was issued, wherein the Sh Mukesh Goyal, CA appeared and sought extension of time. Thereafter, vide letter dated 21.12.2012, appellant submitted some of the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor. The Supreme Court in Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India Ors. [18 [2007 (9) SCALE 197], held as follows: - ..It appears that the competent authority has wrongly quoted Section 20 in the order of discharge whereas, in fact, the order of discharge has to be read having been passed under Section 22 of the Army Act. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law [see N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 278]. Thus, quoting of wrong provision of Section 20 in the order of discharge of the appellant by the competent authority does not take away the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 22 of the Army Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the appellant from the army service cannot be vitiated on this sole ground as contended by the Learned Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks contract service. We are also in agreement with the contention of the Ld counsel that the demand for the period 1.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 is liable to be dropped as the same is squarely covered by the exemption contained in Notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. 12. We now address the issue relating to the demand confirmed under Management, Maintenance Repair service. We have held that the firefighting equipment installation is exempted from service tax, in view of the fact that the same was undertaken in Government buildings which are non-commercial, hence we agree with the submissions of the ld counsel that maintenance services provided to government buildings is covered by the retrospective amendment provided by Section 98 from 16.6.2005 till 28.05.2012. Consequently, the demand for its maintenance is also exempted. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. counsel is squarely applicable in the instant case. 13. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the appellant was not liable to service tax on the provision of services to PWD/CPWD. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.08.2024) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
