9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplied under the said contract treating the same as works contract. However, since those contracts are not available with them being more than two decades old, it would be difficult on their part to substantiate their claim. Therefore, on instruction from the appellant, the learned advocate submits that they are willing to discharge interest applicable on the service amount of Rs.29,47,547/- already paid and prays for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The entire amount of service tax confirmed has been paid by the appellant much before the issuance of show-cause notice. It is their contention that wherever services are rendered during the period 01.07.2003 to 27.03.2007 involving only Erection, Installation and Commissioning, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the manufacture of electrical equipment such as current transformers, power transformers, etc., during the relevant period. On the basis of investigation, a show-cause notice was issued to them on 14.05.2008 for recovery of Service Tax not paid during the period 01.07.2003 to 27.03.2007 in relation to services rendered under taxable category of Erection, Installation and Commissioning Services with interest and penalty. On adjudication, demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant submits that appellants were discharging service tax on Erection, Installation and Commissioning Services wherever only said services were rendered; however, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh vs. CCE, Chandigarh: 2002 (141) ELT 770 (Tri.-Del.) * Sree Venkateswara Hi-Tech Machinery vs. CCE, Coimbatore: 2007 (6) STR 139 (Tri.-Chennai) * Ram Krishna Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara: 2007 (6) STR 37 (Tri.-Mumbai) * Mohan Industrial Security Services vs. CCE, New Delhi: 2006 (2) STR 527 (Tri.-Del.) * Sajjan Kumar Kariwala vs. CCE: 2003 (159) ELT 1131 (Tri.-Del.) * Ashok Rastogi vs. CCE: 1998 (104) ELT 480 (Tri.) * Catalyst Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2005 (184) ELT 34 (Tri.-Mum.) * CCE, Rajkot vs. Air Express Courier Services: 2005 (182) ELT 409 (Tri.-Mum.) 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 5. Heard both sides and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at these contracts could not be placed being not traceable. Hence, it is only in the nature of works contract cannot be ascertained, since all these contracts could not be placed on record due to lapse of time. In their reply to show-cause notice and in their Appeal Memorandum, they have been claiming consistently that the service rendered by them, wherever VAT is paid and service tax not paid when it is in the nature of works contract service. The applicable Service Tax has been already paid and the appellant agree to discharge the interest on the said amount. In these circumstances, we do not see any reason not to invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 as far as imposition of penalty is concerned. Consequently, the impugned order is m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
