TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontract is construction of Ash Dyke, involving supply of goods on payment of appropriate VAT, splitting of the said contract to classify the service under site formation and clearance service in the adjudication order is not legally sustainable. Scope of work pursuant to the above work order should appropriately be classifiable under works contract service, leviable to service tax with effect from 01.06.2007 - In the present case, since the period involved is from 25.11.2005 to 03.06.2006, which is prior to the effective date of levy of service tax on works contract service, in our considered view, the Service Tax demand of ₹ 79,02,503/- cannot be confirmed against the appellant. The ld. Adjudicating Authority has already referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total 1,66,40,907/- 2. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that in respect of the demand indicated at Sl. No.1 and 2 in the above table, the appellant had deposited the service tax liability and challenged the impugned order against imposition of penalty only. He further submitted that the issue regarding payment of service tax by M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL) was under consideration by the Ministry of Coal and Ministry of Finance and upon receipt of confirmation regarding payment of service tax, the same was deposited by SECL on behalf of the appellant. With regard to imposition of penalty, the submissions of the ld. Advocate are that there was reasonable cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position that Service Tax is liable to be paid under the taxable service, SECL has accepted its liability and paid the Service Tax on behalf of the appellant. The said fact has been stated by the adjudication authority in the impugned order at paragraph 4.1. (xiii). Further, with regard to the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 6,72,143/- on transportation service, the appellant had deposited the entire amount alongwith interest, the fact of which has also been acknowledged vide paragraph 16 in the impugned order. Non-payment of Service Tax within the stipulated time as stated by the appellant are that there was confusion with the trade with regard to proper classification of service, whether to be classified under transport of goods by r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... task. We also find that the adjudicating authority has recorded the submissions of the appellant vide paragraph 4.1 (xi) that the construction of Ash Dyke was awarded on turnkey basis and the client has deducted work contract tax as per Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Law. However, he has not specifically dealt with the issue raised by the appellant at the time of adjudication proceedings. In view of the fact that the essence of contract is construction of Ash Dyke, involving supply of goods on payment of appropriate VAT, splitting of the said contract to classify the service under site formation and clearance service in the adjudication order is not legally sustainable. Scope of work pursuant to the above work order should appropriately be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
