Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1184 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 1184 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 392 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Small service provider exemption upto 10 lakhs - clubbing of clearance - another proprietorship firm run by the son of the assessee - work of civil construction and site formation service - appellant had neither registered with the Service Tax Department nor was paying tax nor had charged service tax in its invoices - Held that:- Clubbing of the service provided by Balaji Construction is evidently wrong. The appellant ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is set aside. - The next ground urged is that threshold exemption have not been allowed to the appellant, as the appellant is a small contractor. So far this issue is concerned the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to examine the allowability of the threshold limit as provided under the relevant notification and allow the same. So far the penalties are concerned, I find that there is reasonable cause for not making compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Order-in-Appeal No. US/121/RGD/2011 dated 24.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the work of civil construction and also site formation service. The appellant had neither registered with the Service Tax Department nor was paying tax nor had charged service tax in its invoices. Preventive Team visited the appellants site in January, 2008 and on being so advised by the Preventive Team that the services r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant have been providing services chargeable to service tax, such services are provided to Roha Dye Chem. Pvt. Ltd. and hence the appellant is not eligible for abatement. Accordingly the appellant is required to show-cause as to why service tax be not demanded by classifying under the categories "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" and site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving demolition and accordingly service tax was proposed to be demanded at ₹ 15 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt who started business in April, 2006 as well as with respect to service provided by Balaji Construction the proprietor of which was one Balraj Malayya Besta, who is separately assessed to income tax. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by ex-parte order and the proposed demand was confirmed and appropriated. Further penalty was imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 3.1 Before the Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oceedings are vitiated. It was also urged that the appellant is not liable for the service provided by Balaji Construction. Further no penalty is leviable as there was no deliberate default or contumacious conduct, as the appellant is not educated and was not aware of the provisions of service tax. Further urged that the show-cause notice is barred by limitation and accordingly prays for appropriate relief. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), went through copies of income tax records filed befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve escaped collection, had not the Preventive Officers visited the appellant and as such for non-payment of service tax, upheld the penalty imposed under Section 77 and 78 but was pleased to delete the penalty under Section 76, relying on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Pedharkar Constructions 2011 (23) STR 75 (Tri.- Mumbai). Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. The appellant is absent in spite of notice and was absent on the last several dates .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version