Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 295 - AT - Service TaxIndustrial construction service - benefit of abatement of 67% under Notification NO.15/2004-ST - Held that:- We are not in agreement with the contention that the services rendered at the residential houses in which employees of the respondent reside would be tantamount to rendering industrial construction service. Similarly an amount of ₹ 5,71,646/- received for painting of goods /material/other article other than building and civil structures would not be part of industrial construction service. However, Painting of walls of the floor of commercial building would fall under industrial construction service and being in the nature of completion and finishing service would not be entitled to abatement of 67% under Notification No.15/20045-ST. Disallowing such abatement and allowing exemption upto the value of 4 lakhs, Service tax liability of ₹ 36,233/- on taxable value of Rs,.3,55,229/- would arise. As regards the issue of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, we find that the only ground to sustain this allegation is that the respondent did not file ST-3 returns nor registered with the Service Tax department. However the Commissioner (Appeals) held that no service tax was liable. In the case of Continental Foundation Jt.Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I- [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Supreme Court has in effect held that mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty - Suppression means failure to disclose full information with intent to evade payment of duty - An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a wilful mis-statement - There cannot be suppression or mis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for purpose of proviso to Section 11A ibid - Mis-statement of fact must be wilful. In view of the said observation of Supreme Court and even the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that no service tax was payable, we are of the view that the allegation of suppression/wilful mis-statement is not sustainable as a consequence of which the demand is rendered time barred. - Decided against Revenue.
|