Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Shree Dhavir Construction Versus CCE, Raigad

2015 (11) TMI 1184 - CESTAT 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 had produced the copy of Income Tax records of the proprietor of “Balaji Const .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. The contention of the appellant have not been found wrong that he was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner 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 rendered by the appellant are liable to service tax, the appellant started ra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 ₹ 15,12,098/- for the period October, 2004 to September, 2009 (extended period) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ovided 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 (Appeals) the appellant had raised the grounds that the clubbing done by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or 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 before him for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, but rejected the same ho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 also. Thus case is taken up ex-parte for disposal. 5. Heard the learned A.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

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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