TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... precluded from invoking the extended period for raising of the demand in view of the decision in the case of Ramdev Blocks vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2016 (12) TMI 81 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - the entire demand is time barred. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.ST/75453/2014 - FO/76821/2018 - Dated:- 19-9-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate and Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate for the Appellant Shri D. Haldar, AC (AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri Bijay Kumar: The instant appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 37/Commr/ST/KOL/2013-2014 dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in force during the said period) contained in Section 73(1) of the Act. The period involved in this case is from October, 2007 to March, 2010 and the show cause notice along with Corrigendum was issued on 29.03.2012. It was argued that it is a settled decision of the Apex Court that in a case, like the instant case, where on the same issue and in similar circumstances show cause notice was issued earlier, in the subsequent show cause notice there can be no allegation of suppression of any material fact or willful misstatements or contravention by an assessee under the provision of the act or rules framed therein with intent to evade payment of duty/tax and in such cases there can be no invocation of the extended period of limitation under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order by holding that the contract with HECL was for providing erection, commissioning and installation services and taxable as such, in respect of other two contracts, even though they were works contract service, and also there was undervaluation of the taxable consideration in as much as the appellant had considered only the value pertaining to the works and services contract and not the connected supply contract and therefore the Commissioner held that the appellant was not eligible for benefit under the Composition Scheme and the concessional rate of duty payable thereunder. 5. Ld. Senior Advocate argued that as a matter of practice, the appellant enters with the two agreements with their clients, that the supply of plant and machi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved herein in as much as undisputedly the three contracts were entered into much prior to 07.07.2009. He also contested the allegation made in the said order that the appellant artificially bifurcated the two contracts to reduce tax liability without any evidence or material fact on record. The contract was awarded on the basis of public tender and the terms and conditions of which including providing for two separate contracts/agreements, one for supply of plant and machinery and the other for works and services wherein also related materials are to be supplied. The terms and conditions have to be accepted by all tenderers for even participating in the tender. There is no question of artificially bifurcating the contract to the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the rival submissions and perused the appeal records. The issue regarding classification of service is settled in favour of the appellant vide this Tribunal order in case of appellant themselves pertaining to earlier period wherein it has been held that the activities undertaken by the appellant falls within the works contract service and liable to the benefit of Works Contract Act subsequent to 01.06.2007 in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Commr. Of Central Excise Customs, Kerala vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. (supra). 8. We also find that the demand has been raised invoking the extended period. It is on record that for the previous period department had been issuing the show cause notice which was subject ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
