Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 96 - CESTAT ALLAHABADClassification of services - doing carpentry in an old building - Commercial and Industrial Construction Services or not? - Held that:- We have gone through the definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services and find that the same includes the carpentry work also. Further said Clause (d) of the definition refers to repair, alteration, renovation or restoration, or similar services, in relation to Clauses (b) and (c). This clearly leads us to conclude that the carpentry work done for repair, renovation of the buildings is also included in the said definition - the appellant subsequently had taken the service tax registration and started paying service tax on the same activities for the subsequent period - decided against assessee. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The fact that the appellant started paying duty for the subsequent period, even though the same was under a wrong belief, the same belief should have made him to pay duty for the previous year also instead of suppressing the value of the work done during that period - the appellant acted with a mala fide and suppressed the work done by him during the period 2005-06 in which case, the longer period stands rightly invoked by the Revenue. As regards the assessee’s contention that part of the demand is even beyond the period of 5 years, we note that as per the letter of the Superintendent addressed to the assessee, the show cause notice was pasted at his residential premises on 23.04.2010 itself. It is only subsequently, when they asked another copy of the show cause notice the same was provided to them vide letter dated 15.11.2010, by stating that the same already stands served upon the assessee. As such we do not find merits on the said plea also. Demand of duty with penalty u/s 78 upheld - as regards imposition of penalty in terms of Section 77 of the Act, we find that as already full penalty stands imposed under Section 78, there may not be justification for imposition of separate penalty under Section 77 of the Act - appeal allowed in part.
|