Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 200 - CESTAT NEW DELHIErection, Commissioning or Installation services - failure to obtain registration - failure to file periodic returns and disclose gross consideration received - failure to remit the due tax - Neither in response to summons issued nor in response to the show cause notice, did the petitioner choose to furnish copies of the several work orders/agreements under which petitioner executed works entrusted to it by L & T Ltd. - Held that:- petitioner failed to cooperate and to meaningfully participate in the adjudication proceedings and thereby disabled rational analysis of all the work orders - no serious infirmity in the conclusion recorded by the adjudicating authority that the petitioner had provided ECIS to L & T Ltd., a taxable service under Section 65 (39a) read with Section 65(105)(zzd) of the Finance Act, 1994. Regarding the challenge on the point of jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raipur - Held that:- in terms of Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the petitioner has opted neither for centralised registration nor for registration at different sites in different States where works were executed were in favour of L & T Ltd. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Raipur, within the jurisdiction of the Raipur Commissionerate and operates within the domain of that Commissionerate. It is the petitioner who is service provider and not the site manager at the work sites in the various States. We find no warrant, prima facie, to conclude that the Commissioner, Raipur had no jurisdiction. No provision of any statute or of any notification which calls into question the exercise of jurisdiction by the Raipur Commissioner is brought to our notice. - no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to warrant granting waiver of pre deposit in full - stay granted partly.
|