9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esting and Analysis service' and 'Consulting Engineer Service'. Demand under the head Commercial or industrial construction service - Eligibility for the benefit of N/N. 01/2006-S.T dated 01.03.2006 - usage of materials - claim of the appellant is that they have executed all the Work Orders along with materials and hence, they are eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. dated 01.03.2006 - HELD THAT:- It is the submission of the Appellant that they have evidence on record to show that they have used 'materials' while executing all the Work Orders. It is their submission that if the issue is remanded back to the adjudicating authority, they will be able to prove the usage of 'materials' in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also to be restricted to the normal period of limitation alone. Demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order under the categories of 'Technical Testing and Analysis service' and 'Consulting Engineer Service' - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not contested the demands of service tax on these categories. Accordingly, the demands of service tax along with interest confirmed under these categories upheld. Since there is no evidence brought on record to establish suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of tax in respect of these demands, no penalty imposable on the appellant with respect to these confirmed demands. Appeal disposed off. - HON BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE SHRI K. AN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 12/Commr/ST/GHY/13-14 dated 30.01.2014 wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.2,20,40,827/- (including cesses) along with interest under the category of commercial or industrial construction service for the period from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2012. In the impugned order, the Ld. adjudicating authority allowed the benefit of Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. dated 01.03.2006 in respect of some Work Orders and denied the benefit in respect of the remaining Work Orders. He also confirmed the demand of service tax under the categories of 'Technical Testing and Analysis service' and 'Consulting Engineer Service'. He also imposed equal amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax, they submitted that there was no intention to evade payment of Service Tax and there was no mens rea on their part. The appellant also submitted that no Service Tax was charged in the bills. Further, it is submitted that the issue of eligibility of benefit of Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. dated 01.03.2006 is a question of fact which needs to be verified based on the materials available on record and accordingly, the appellant contends that the demand of Service Tax by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 5.2. Regarding the demand of service tax under the categories of 'Technical Testing and Analysis service' and 'Consulting Engineer Service', the appellant submits that they are not contesting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gible for the benefit of Notification No. 01/2006-S.T dated 01.03.2006 in respect of all the contracts. In support of this claim, the appellant submitted some documents pertaining to the Work Orders where the benefit of the Notification was rejected by the adjudicating authority. For the sake of ready reference, copy of one such document pertaining to the Work Order where the benefit of Notification No. 01/2006-S.T dated 01.03.2006 has not been extended is scanned and extracted below : - [ref. page 109 of Appeal No. ST/75738/2014-DB] 8.3. A perusal of the document extracted above indicate that materials have been used in respect of this contract and hence, the benefit of Notification No. 01/2006-S.T dated 01.03.2006 is to be extended to thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we observe that the appellant has not collected Service Tax from its customers. Further, the appellant was of the view that they were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. as they were using materials. Thus, we observe that suppression of facts with intention to evade the tax has not been established in this case. Therefore, we hold that the demand of Service Tax from the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. The demand in the instant case has been raised for the period from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2012 while the impugned Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.04.2013. Accordingly, the demand is to be restricted to the normal period of limitation and the verification by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
