9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, 1994. The period involved is from October, 2007 to March, 2010. The impugned order was passed in pursuance to the show cause notice issued on 22.03.2012 alongwith corrigendum dated 29.3.2012. The case involves service rendered under six contracts. Three of them are continuing contracts, being contracts which were subject matter of STA Nos.282 & 294 of 2009 decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order No.FO/76440-76441/2018 dated 17.07.2018 and the remaining contracts were dated 21.06.2008, 29.07.2008 and 19.06.2008 which were entered by the appellant with Northern Coalfields Ltd. and Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. 2. Ld. Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant states that in respect of their continuing contracts issue st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry vs. Collector of Central Excise [2006(197) ELT 465 (SC)]. (ii) ECE Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2004(164) ELT 236(SC)]. (iii) Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2016(344) ELT 994(T-Kol)]. It was within the knowledge of the department that the appellant was paying the Service Tax and filing regular return and the entire fact was disclosed by them in their ST-3 returns regarding classification of service. In addition to this the issue involved relates to classification of services which involve interpretation of law. Under the circumstances, as per settled law, there cannot be any invocation of the extended period of limitation. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first contract. While the first contract only involves supply of materials on which VAT was payable and there was no liability under the Finance Act, the second contract also involved supply works and services which were both services and supply components. Reliance was placed on the CBEC Circular No.150/2012-ST dated 08.02.2012 which clarified the provisions of Rule 3 of the Composition Scheme that by substituted Explanation thereto provided that the gross amount charged for the works contract excisable to service tax have been the sum including value of all goods used in or in relation to the execution of the works contract whether supplied under any other contract for consideration or otherwise. However, the proviso thereto makes it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014(33) STR 696 (T)]. Further, the Ld. Advocate argues that the manner in which the Commissioner proceeded in the impugned order is also contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.[1995(76) ELT 481(SC)]. In addition to the above it is the contention of the ld. Senior Advocate that the demand is also barred by limitation as the show cause notice having been issued on 11.04.2016 beyond the prescribed the limit of 18 months as contained in Section 73(1) of the Act during the relevant period when the show cause notice was issued on the ground that the relevant information was available with the department and the factum of being service tax being discharged is not disputed and this wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
