TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PREME COURT], the demand of service tax for the period prior to 01.06.2007 is liable to be set aside. Demand beyond the normal period of limitation under section 73 of the Finance Act - Held that:- It is on record that the appellant was already registered with the Department for providing various services. They have also been filing ST-3 returns periodically in which they have declared the value of services provided and the fact that they were paying the Service tax under the category of commercial or industrial construction services, after availing the benefit of the Notification No.01/2006. The Department appears to have taken the view that the activities are more appropriately classifiable under the category of Works Contract Service, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R PER: V.PADMANABHAN The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No.7/2013 dated 25.02.2013. The Adjudicating order confirmed the service tax demand of ₹ 60,45,479/- besides, interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 76 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was engaged in construction activity and was registered with the Service Tax Department for providing the services of Commercial or Industrial Construction as well as of Construction of Residential Complex Service defined under Section 65 (25b) as well as Section 65 (91a) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Sections 65 (zzq) and 65 (105) (zzzh) thereof. The appellant was filing ST-3 returns periodically for the taxable services rendered under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Service Tax) Rules 2007. 3. After the due process of adjudication the adjudicating authority issued the impugned order. After examination of the submissions made by the appellant, the adjudicating authority concluded that the appellant will not be liable for payment of service tax to the extent of ₹ 44,21,213/- which was the service tax demanded, for the services provided to educational institutions. The balance amount of service tax amounting to ₹ 60,45,479/- was ordered to be paid. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. The appellant is represented by Shri A.K.Prasad, ld. Advocate and Revenue is represented by Shri. R.K. Maji, ld. D.R. 5. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant are su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. As such, he said that the benefit of time bar is to be extended to the appellant. Further, he submitted that the levy of service tax under WCS was also the subject matter of several disputes which came to be concluded only with the issue of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of L T. Consequently, he asserted that no demand will survive for the period beyond the normal time limit. 7. In respect of the demand, covered within the normal time limit, he submitted that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of the Works Contract Composition Scheme. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has declined to extent the benefit of the Composition Scheme by taking the view that the appellant did not file the option to claim the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. The appellant has admittedly provided construction services. After perusal of some of the contracts whose copies were submitted by the appellant, the adjudicating authority himself has recorded the conclusion that the services provided by the appellant will be classifiable under the category of Works Contract Service w.e.f. 01.06.2007. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of L T (Supra), the demand of service tax for the period prior to 01.06.2007 is liable to be set aside. 10.1. Next we examine the claim of the appellant that the demand beyond the normal period of limitation under section 73 of the Finance Act is liable to be set aside on the ground of time bar. It is on record that the appellant was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifies that the service provider is required to opt for payment of service tax under the Composition Rules by exercising such option in respect of a works contract prior to payment of service tax in respect of the said contract and the option so exercised shall be applicable for the entire works contract and shall not be withdrawn until the completion of the said works contract. 11. Admittedly, the appellant has not exercised such an option until filing the reply to the show cause notice. But the question to be decided is whether non-fulfilment of the conditions of Rule 3 will render the appellant ineligible for the benefit of the Composition Scheme. The appellant has cited several decisions to support his stand that they will still b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
