TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 20/08/2015 in Larsen & Toubro [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] - Appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 55888 of 2013 - Final Order No. 50437/2017 - Dated:- 13-1-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate - for the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) -for the Respondent ORDER The appeal is against order dated 27/11/2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. This is a second round of appeal on this matter. Against the first order-in-original dated 13/01/2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal the appellant filed appeal and the Tribunal vide final order No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded in the final order of the Tribunal, mentioned above. The Tribunal recorded that the appellant applied for registration on 03/12/2004 under the category of construction service. On 03/03/2005 and 14/03/2005 the appellant addressed the Jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent giving details of their activity for registering their activity under tax entry erection, installation and commissioning services . This request was allowed by the Department on 22/02/2005 by endorsement in the registration certificate. Again on 28/12/2005, the Jurisdictional Superintendent wrote to the appellant with reference to non-payment of service tax from January 2005. For this, the appellant replied on 31/01/2006 stating that their services are not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material time and accordingly the charge of willful mis-statement was confirmed against the appellant. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The facts of the declaration and intimations about their activities to the Jurisdictional officer by the appellant has been recorded by the Tribunal in the final order mentioned above. There is no dispute on these facts. However, we note the impugned order did not consider these facts for invoking demand for extended period, in correct prospective. Based on ST-3 returns filed by the appellant the charge of willful mis-statement was upheld. We find in view of the clear facts about the intimation given by the appellant and various communications in which the activities hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
