2012 (6) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the stay petition. 2. The applicant is engaged in the construction of petrol bunks for public sector oil companies like HPCL, IOC, BPCL etc. It is claimed that the applicant is paying VAT on materials used on the total value of contract treating the activities as "works contract service". Therefore, they were under the bona fide belief that their activities did not fall under "Commercial or Ind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es, invocation of extended period of limitation is not justified. He further submits that the liability within the normal period of limitation is around Rs. 7 lakhs and they have already paid an amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs during the investigation. He also relies on the stay order of the Tribunal in the case of Geo-Tech Construction Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Cochin, reported in 2011 (23) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The claim of the appellant is that they were under bona fide belief that their activities did not fall under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' appears not acceptable. The decision of the stay order relied upon by the appellant in the case of Geo-tech Construction Co. P. Ltd. (supra) appears to be based on the relevant provisions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X