9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for others. Show cause notice dated 26 March, 2014 was issued raising demand for an amount of Rs. 32,54,600/- with further proposal to impose penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Act. The said demand was with respect to extended period of limitation from October, 2008 to September, 2013. The Adjudicating Authority held the activity in question has covered under 'site formation service' as defined under Section 65(105)(zzza) which defines 'taxable service' - as any service provided or to be provided to any person by any other person, "in relation to site formation and clearance, excavation earthmoving and demolition and such other similar activities". Further site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f that the service tax is not excisable on the activity of laying cables as clarified by the CBEC subsequently, the penalties imposed are also not tenable. He also relied upon case laws in the case of CST v/s Rishabh Telelinks reported in 2017 (49) STR 71 (Tri. Del.), in the case of H M Satyanarayan v/s CCE reported in 2016 (42) STR 397 (Tri. Mum) and Lakshmi Constructions v/s CCE reported in 2015 (39) STR 175 (Tri. Bang). 4. Learned AR for the Revenue has relied on the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we hold that the activity is not classifiable under Section 65(105)(zzza) read with section 65(97a) under the classification 'site formation and clearance, excavation and demolition' etc. We further hold that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red under Section 35(f) of the Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that appellant was required to make pre-deposit of 7.5% of 44,47,611, which would be Rs. 3,33,571/-. The appellant had claimed that they have made a pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 3,65,085/- on 19 January, 2014. The learned Commissioner did not accept the said amount towards pre-deposit observing - the appellant has failed to show any connection in relation between the demand determined in impugned Original Order and the amount of Rs. 3,65,085/- deposited on 9 January, 2014. 4. We find that such objection of the learned Commissioner is not tenable, without there being any adverse material on record. Further we find that the appellant have made the requisite pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
