9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by the Tribunal and the Courts; no positive act of commission/ omission on the part of the appellants is evidenced to allege suppression of fact, mis-declaration with intent to evade payment of duty so as to invoke extended period. Therefore, the Revenue has not made out even a weak case for invocation of extended period. The Show Cause Notice issued invoking extended period is not maintainable and therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuant of the same requires to be set aside. It is further found that certain portion of the demand is beyond the extended period also. Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of Rs.37,01,15,281/-. 2. Shri Atul Gupta, learned Consultant for the appellant, submits that the learned Commissioner held in the impugned order that: • Valuation at the rate of 40% in terms of Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 in respect of contracts with Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) is correct and appellant's claim that as per the contract, only 20% is service portion and 80% is the material portion is not evidenced by documents. • Projects undertaken for Chandigarh Housing Board, HEWO and CDAO (Nasik) are taxable. • Projects undertaken for Military Engineering Service, Director General and Unity Infra Project Ltd. were exempt. • Gross value requires to be taken fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; Asia Polytex (India) Ltd. - 2001 (132) ELT 282 (Tri. Mumbai) 4. The gist of the submissions by the learned Consultant on the merits of the case is as follows: (i) The contract with AWHO itself says that the material and labour portions of the contract is 80:20; therefore, it was wrong to take recourse to Valuation Rules. (ii) The appellants have paid Rs.54,35,877/- which is not reflected in ST-3 Returns; allowance cannot be denied for the reason that the tax paid has not been reflected in ST-3 Returns. (iii) Service tax of Rs.9,69,942/- in respect of work undertaken for CDAO (Nasik) has been paid subsequently and the same has not been considered. (iv) Service tax of Rs.6,39,090/- on the project undertaken for Chandigarh Housing B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.T.L. 474 (Telangana) 6. Shri Siddharth Jaiswal, assisted by Shri Shivam Syal, learned Authorized Representatives, reiterates the findings of the OIO in respect of the appeal filed by the M/s Girdhari Lal Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the grounds of appeal in respect of appeal filed by the Revenue. He further submits that: (i) Appellants claim that Rs.54,35,877/- was paid but not reflected in Returns is incorrect as the challan showing the above payment has an endorsement to the effect that the amount paid in excess will be adjusted towards the tax liability from 01.04.2016 onwards. (ii) The appellants claim that the period April to June 2012 is beyond limitation is devoid of merit as the appellants could not produce any documentary evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the records of the case. The Show Cause Notice is apparently based on the findings of CERA audit on the accounts of the appellants; for the reason that the appellant has not submitted any documents; the demand has been raised on the basis of 26AS record. We find that during the impugned period, divergent opinion was being taken by the Tribunal and the Courts; no positive act of commission/ omission on the part of the appellants is evidenced to allege suppression of fact, mis-declaration with intent to evade payment of duty so as to invoke extended period. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Revenue has not made out even a weak case for invocation of extended period. We find that the Show Cause Notice issued invoking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
