TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to service tax prior to 1.6.2007 - there is no liability for the appellant to pay service tax on these composite works contract prior to 1.6.2007. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - there is ground for the appellant to have bonafide belief regarding non-liability as to service tax - there is no ground for invoking demand for extended period - the penalties imposed on the appellant are to be held as non-sustainable. Jurisdiction - Held that: - The appellants are having registered office at Bhopal and they are registered with the Service Tax Department at Bhopal. They do have a branch office at Jhansi but were not registered in Jhansi. The contracts were executed in the name of registered office and work executed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in terms of Section 65(39a) of Finance Act, 1994. The proceedings initiated against the appellant concluded in the impugned order. The Original Authority confirmed service tax demand of ₹ 39,24,724/-. He also imposed a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 and further penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted mainly on the following points:- (a) The contracts, which are subject matter of dispute in this appeal, are of composite nature having supply of goods alongwith provision of service while executing the work. Such composite work contract cannot be taxed as a simple service of erection, commissioning and installation. In terms of the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders at Jhansi also. The said work order was carried out through their Jhansi office or the billing was done only from Jhansi Office will not affect on the jurisdiction to demand or to pay service tax. There is no registration by the Jhansi Branch Office with the Department. As the registered office is at Bhopal and the contracts were executed as a corporate legal entity, the location of branch will not alter the jurisdiction. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. On the first issue regarding the tax liability of the appellant in respect of composite works contract, we note that based on the terms of the contracts, it is clear that these contracts are of composite nature involving both supply of materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of registered office and work executed by the appellant. The Jhansi office dealt with the billing or other connected activities does not have impact of shifting of jurisdiction regarding the appellant s liability as a party to the contract of service. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Kolhapur Vs. Helios Food Additives Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (24) STR 721 (Tribunal-Mumbai). As such, the question of jurisdiction has been correctly dealt with by the lower authorities and we find no merit in the contention of the appellant. 7. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find that the liability of the appellant to service tax shall be restricted to the normal period under Works Contract Service. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
