TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants would be entitled to supervision charges for supervision of the works done by contractors engaged by the appellants. These supervision charges are sought to be taxed under the Consulting Engineer Service. A company or body corporate was not covered in the scope of ‘Consulting Engineer’ before the amendment to the definition of Consulting Engineer with effect from 01.05.2006. It is seen that the demand period involved in the present appeal is prior to 01.05.2006. Thus, the appellants being a company or body corporate were outside the ambit of Consulting Engineer during the relevant period and consequently the service rendered by them was outside the scope of Consulting Engineer Service - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on their part nor is there any basis for that allegation given in the Show Cause Notice. 4. The Ld. AR contended that the appellants engaged contractors and so supervision charges for supervising the work fell under the Consulting Engineer Service and not taking the registration under that category and not filing ST-3 returns clearly meant that the appellants had suppressed the facts with intent to evade duty. 5. We have considered the facts and the submissions of both sides. 6. It is seen that in the Show Cause Notice, there is not even a single line describing as to what is the actual services rendered by the appellants which are sought to be covered under the Consulting Engineer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-Original, the extended period is held to be invocable only on the basis of the following: Since the assessee has not paid service tax by reason of suppression of fact and contravention of the provision of chapter V of the said Act, or the rules made there-under, with intent to evade payment of service tax; thus the extended period of five years provided in proviso to sub-section (1) of section 73 of the Act, is applicable. It is evident that the contents of the above para are totally inadequate to sustain the charge of suppression of facts. Indeed it is repeatedly held in several judgements that mere non registration, non filing of ST-3 return or non payment of service tax (or even all three of these) are by themselves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited, 2014-TIOL-936-CESTAT-DEL 4. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Simplex Infrastructure Foundry Works, 2014 (34) STR 191 (Del) In all the aforesaid judgments, including the one passed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court, it has been categorically held that a company or body corporate was not covered in the scope of Consulting Engineer before the amendment to the definition of Consulting Engineer with effect from 01.05.2006. It is seen that the demand period involved in the present appeal is prior to 01.05.2006. Thus, the appellants being a company or body corporate were outside the ambit of Consulting Engineer during the relevant period and consequently the service rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
