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 Agni Electricals Versus Commissioner C.C.E & ST, Hyderabad-II

2016 (9) TMI 631 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Invokation of extended period of limitation - Demand alongwith interest and penalty - Commercial or industrial construction service for the period upto 31-05-2007 and Works Contract service for the period 01-06-2007 to 31-03-2011 - Held that:- the appellant has contended that service provided by them has been correctly classified as WCS for the period from 01-06-2007 and that same service cannot be classified under CICS for the period prior to 01-06-2007. This contention is correct and any dispu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ith regard to dispute to nature of service provided by them. This being so, it is patently incorrect for the department to allege in the said show cause notice, wilful suppression of facts. In consequence, invocation of extended period in the show cause notice is not justifiable and the demand of tax will have to be limited to the normal period of one year computed from the date of service of notice which the appellant has claimed to be 01-11-2011. Also the appellant has contended that rate of s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

15 - Final Order No. A/30637/2016 - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri P. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Reddy, AR for the Respondent ORDER The appellants were engaged in executing the works of construction of petrol pumps or retail outlets awarded by Indian Oil Corporation (ICOL), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (HPCL) and M/s IBP Co.Ltd since the year 2004. Department alleged that the said activi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cial or industrial construction service for the period upto 31-05-2007 (ii) service tax amount of ₹ 5,78,939/- payable on taxable service of Works Contract service for the period 01-06-2007 to 31-03-2011 along with interest thereof and imposition of penalties. The notice was adjudicated and lower authority, vide Order-in-Original dated 23-10-2012 confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice. The above appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 17-09-2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. P. Rama Krishna reiterated the grounds of appeal and in particular submitted as follows. 3.1 During the impugned period 2006-07 to 2010-11 and prior to this period, the Appellant had carried out works contract services to Indian Oil Corporation (ICOL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (HPCL) in the nature of " routine civil/mechanical/ pipeline/ electrical/ painting/ vision-2000 work including installation of 15/20 KL tanks at IO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant. 3.3 There was an exchange of correspondence between the appellant and the department in respect of new levy of service tax. In fact, the appellant through their society challenged the new levy by way of filing writ petition No. 28470/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said writ petition is still pending. The same fact also conveyed to the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad vice his letter dated 29-09-2008, wherein, the appellant disclosed turnov .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

notice is barred by limitation. 3.6 Show cause notice completely ignored the letter of the appellant dated 29-09-2008, wherein the appellant submitted the details of turnover. During the year 2005-2006 the appellant disclosed the turnover as ₹ 11,59,292/-. Thus, the abated value would be worked out under notification No. 1/2006-ST, dated 01-03-2006 as 33% of gross value ie. ₹ 3,82,566/- The said turnover for the year 2005-2006 is much below the threshold limit of ₹ 4.0 lakhs 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

ation No.6/2005-ST. The demand notice ignored this fact and denied the benefit. 3.9 Prior to 01-06-2007, there was no service tax payable on works contract services. This fact has been completely ignored by the demand notice. 3.10 After rectification of the above mistakes apparent on demand notice, if it is re-quantified, the demand would only be around ₹ 3,34,702/- and not ₹ 6,87,247/- as alleged in the notice. 4. The learned AR Sri. S. Reddy vigorously opposed the appeal and conten .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-2011. The department has not adduced any evidence to establish the contrary. The notice seeks to demand ₹ 1,08,308/- on Commercial & Industrial Services (CICS) for the period upto 31-05-2007 and amount of ₹ 5,78,939/ on Works Contract Services (WCS) for the period 01-06-2007 to 2010 -2011 invoking extended period of limitation for suppressing actual value of services with intention to evade payment of service tax. This is the notice that has been confirmed by the original adjudi .....

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