TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work contract services provided to M/s P K Thomas (Muscat Towers), Mr G Yohannan (Nandan Square) - Held that:- There is no dispute that the said services were provided during the period 2004-05 to 2006-07, i.e. prior to 01.03.2007 - Hon’ble Apex Court has in case of Larsen and Tubro [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has held that said services became taxable from 1st June 2007 - demand cannot survive. Penalties - Held that:- For the demands upheld the contraventions of provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 leading to imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 & 78 needs to be upheld - In case of benefit of payment of penalty and the rate of 25% was available to the appellant at the time when they had paid the Service Tax along with intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter i.e. from 18.04.2006 @ ₹ 200/- or 2% of such tax per month, whichever is higher, till 10.05.2008, subject to a ceiling that the total amount of the penalty payable under Section 76 shall not exceed the Service Tax, Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess payable for the period. (iv) I impose a penalty of ₹ 5000/- on the notice under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. (v) I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,46,82,438/- under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 on M/s. ABM Civil Ventures for suppression of the facts from the Department with intention to evade payment of Service Tax (including Cess). 2. Appellants are engaged in providing various service such as Site Formation and Clearance and earth mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. Appellant challenged the order dismissing the appeal before High Court without any success. Subsequently after making deposit of entire amount of Service Tax demanded along with interest on the amount demanded and 25% of the penalty imposed the appeals were restored as per direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court. 3.1 We have heard Sh. P. Raghunath, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Gopa Kumar, AR for the Department. 3.2 Learned Chartered Accountant arguing for the appellants, submitted that: (i) Issue in respect of Services provided by him to government projects like those Kerala Water Authority either directly or through the sub-contractor of main contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maining amount. ii. It is also the fact that as per the decision in case of Larsen and Tubro it has been held that the Work Contract Services became taxable only from 1st March 2007. Since the services provided to M/s P K Thomas (Muscat Towers), Mr G Yohannan (Nandan Square) were in the category of work contract services during the period prior to 1.03.2007, the same cannot be said to be taxable at that time. ii. In respect of the services provided for construction of Cement Silo for M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd during the period 2007-08 to 2008-09, even the appellants are not disputing the liablity to tax hence the demand in that respect needs to be upheld. iii. For the Service Tax short paid for which the demand is to be upheld demand f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal No. 19/2011-ST dated 14.12.2011 has held as follows: (i) I hold the works done by M/s. Nobletech Engineering (P) Ltd. to M/s. Kerala Water Authority and M/s. KINFRA shown in Annex. B to the SCN falls under the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction Service and not under Erection Commissioning Installation Service. (ii) I hold that the works done by M/s. Nobletech Engineering (P) Ltd. to M/s. Kerala Water Authority and to M/s. Degremount Ltd. falling under the category of Commercial and Industrial Construction Service and Works Contracts Service are exempted from payment of Service Tax and accordingly drop the proceedings proposed in the notice against the services provided in respect of the above works. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only state that whichever judgments which are in appeal before us and have referred to and dealt with such notifications will have to be disregarded. Since the levy itself of service tax has been found to be non-existent, no question of any exemption would arise. With these observations, these appeals are disposed of. 45. We, therefore, allow all the appeals of the assessees before us and dismiss all the appeals of the revenue. Following the said decision of Apex Court we hold that demands made for levy of service tax under various taxable categories in respect of the services provided to M/s P K Thomas (Muscat Towers), Mr G Yohannan (Nandan Square), during the period 2004-05 to 2006-07 cannot survive and we quash the same. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
