TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempt service as per the definition of works contract service which specifically exempts road service . There is no distinction made out by the legislature with respect to public road and private road. Further, admittedly, the appellant have paid the service tax under the works contract composition scheme along with the interest. The appellant is entitled to pay tax under the works contract composition scheme and once they have discharged the tax liability there is no further liability on them. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Misc. Application No. 50874 of 2019 with Service Tax Cross No. 50807 of 2017 in Service Tax Appeal No. 50763 of 2017 - Final Order No. 50170/2020 - Dated:- 7-2-2020 - MR. ANIL CHOU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended period of limitation calculating the tax liability under Section 72 (best judgement assessment) for an amount of ₹ 28,66,619/- including cess. Further, penalty was also proposed. 3. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest vide order-in-original dated 28 May, 2015 determining that service tax is payable under the category of commercial and industrial construction service and, accordingly, appellant is not entitled to pay service tax under the composition scheme as claimed by them (applicable in the case of works contract service) confirming the reduced amount of ₹ 21,33,559/- and dropping the amount of ₹ 7,33,060/-, along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 78. Further, penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 26 May, 2009 invoking extended period of limitation, the subsequent show cause notice dated 19 April 2012 cannot be again issued invoking the extended period of limitation, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Nizam Sugar case . 5. The Revenue preferred appeal against the order of the Tribunal before Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court. The Hon ble High Court did not interfere with the findings of this Tribunal as regards classification of service and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of extended period applicability considering the facts of the assessee s case with respect to the facts in the ruling of Nizam Sugar . 6. Being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.12.2 of order-in-original Construction of civil work of stage-II of the said projects is classifiable under the head CICS; (f) In para 8.12.4 of order-in-original - The road which is constructed within factory or any private premises is liable for service tax; (g) In para 10.6.3 of the order-in-original - Without prejudice to the above finding that the impugned service is classifiable under CICS, even if the impugned service is classifiable under works contract service, still the noticee are not entitled to make payment of service tax under the works contract service (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007; (h) In para 10.6.4 when the dispute of classification has been decided in adjudication proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for NTPC this is 3rd successive notice on the same facts and circumstances. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar (supra), the extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue. 8. Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue states that they have filed Misc. Application for withdrawal of their appeal under the litigation policy and as such their appeal may be disposed of accordingly, and the cross objections of the assessee have also to be disposed of consequently without adjudication. In response the Counsel for the respondent assessee have relied on ruling of Hon ble Kerala High Court, in City Centre and Developers Others Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Others, wherein t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee are allowed. Misc. Application by Revenue stands disposed of. The respondent assessee is entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law. The respondent assessee is directed to submit a calculation of the discharge of the tax liability under the works contract composition scheme before the adjudicating authority. If in case any discrepancy is found, the same shall be pointed out to the assessee and assessee shall deposit any tax which is found to be short paid, on verification of the calculation. 10. Thus, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed, and cross objection of assessee is allowed. Misc. application filed by Revenue also stands disposed of as infructuous. (Pronounced in Court on. 07.02.2020) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
