New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 371 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (9) TMI 371 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (45) S.T.R. 433 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Demand of service tax with interest - Section 73 and Section 75 of the FA, 1994 imposition of penalty - Section 78 and 77 of the FA, 1994 benefit of reduced penalty if paid within stipulated time Chemplast Cuddalore works contract service composition scheme - mobilization advance ST-3 returns - discharge of tax on demand along with interest - suppression of facts Held that: - there was a confusion regarding a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.Darshan Ranavat, CA for appellant Shri. Vikram Kaushik, Asst. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER The appellant, M/s.Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., received an amount of ₹ 13.2 crore as mobilization advance in March 2007 for the project Chemplast Cuddalore but had not discharged the service tax liability on the said advance. Out of the amount of ₹ 13.20 crore, the appellant adjusted an amount of ₹ 8,57,69,568/- in running account bills and paid the Service Tax thereon under the categ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t by not including the same in the ST-3 returns and had failed to discharge the service tax liability thereon under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service in terms of Rule 6 (1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, with an intent to evade payment of service tax. 2. Show cause notice dated 19/06/2009 was issued to the appellant, which has been adjudicated vide impugned order confirming the demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 18,67,340/- along with interest under Section 73 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order-in-appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts. It was argued that though the advance amount was not declared in the ST-3 returns, the appellant themselves disclosed before the audit team that they received the said advance. It was argued that the advance was received in the month of March 2007 but the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se of Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. - 2012 (28) STR 561 (SC) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that when the assessee has already paid tax, they could not change classification of composite service to avail option under works contract service. CBEC also vide Circular No.98/1/2008-ST dated 04/01/2008 clarified that ongoing projects are not eligible for composition scheme. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Punj Lloyd Ltd. - 2015 (40) STR 1028 (Tri-Del .....

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