9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o dispute as to the starting point, which is 21.02.2007. The Show Cause Notice issued on 22.10.2012 is undoubtedly beyond the normal period, rather extending the larger period of limitation and hence, it was incumbent on the Revenue to prove that the appellant had suppressed facts with an intent to evade payment of tax. From a reading of SCN, the allegation against the appellant is that there was no voluntary compliance on its part despite several reminders and that the non-payment of service tax would have gone un-noticed but for the detection at the time of conducting audit by the departmental officers. Conclusion - The allegations ipso facto would not suffice the invoking of larger period of limitation and nor would the same in anyway ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax for ECIS along with appropriate interest and penalties. The said Show Cause Notice is clearly issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. From the record, it appears that the appellant by letter dated 15.05.2013 filed its reply to the above Show Cause Notice contending that it had carried out only the sub-work of electrification of the building through competitive tender, which is part and parcel of the main work of construction of the Civil Court building and hence, their work would also fall under the category of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" (CICS); the main contractor who has executed the construction activity would be liable for service tax but, however, vide Circular No. 80/10/2004 - ST dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate for the appellant and Smt. O.M. Reena, Ld. Additional Commissioner for the respondent; we have carefully perused the impugned order as well as OIO along with the Show Cause Notice and we have also gone through the decision/order of Co-ordinate Delhi bench of the Tribunal in the case of International Metro Civil Contractors Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi - 2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 66 (Tri.-Del.), relied upon by the appellant during hearing. After hearing both sides, we find that the following issues are to be decided by us: "(i) whether the demand against the appellant for an alleged service of Erection, Commissioning and Installation is justified; and (ii) whether the Revenue has satisfied the tests for invoking the extended pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
