9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial or industrial buildings, site formation and clearance and they were registered under the category of 'Works Contract Service' with effect from 28.03.2008. During the period from 2004-05, the appellants had undertaken Commercial or Industrial Construction Service for Mr. G. Yohannan and Mr. P.K. Thomas, and Works Contract Service for M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, M/s Degremont Lmited and M/s Hydrotech Limited. They were paying service tax only in the case of construction work undertaken for M/s Ambuja Cements Limited as they were under the firm belief that the other works were not liable for service tax. The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice No.52/2010-ST dated 08.04.2010 demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,46,82,438/- on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax payable in this respect was not forthcoming neither in the order- in-original nor in the SCN hence the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for the limited purpose of quantifying the amount of service tax payable/paid by the appellants and quantify the penalty amounts under Sections 76 and 78. While remanding the matter to the Commissioner, the Tribunal directed that the above quantification should be done within three months from the date of receipt of the final order. Consequent to the final order of the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax vide order No.17/2019 dated 20.06.2019 refunded the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 1,92,94,575/- along with interest amounting to Rs. 51,85,747/-. Thereafter, the Principal Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen Only) from the amount already paid by them as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as detailed in Para 27 above. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is ultra vires to the directions given by the Appellate Tribunal in its Final Order and secondly the computation of interest and penalty is factually incorrect. He further submitted that as per the Order of Tribunal dated 25.02.2019, the Commissioner should re-quantify the quantum of service tax payable along with the interest and penalties within three months of receipt of the order but the learned Principal Commissioner re-quantified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culation mistakes which are reproduced herein below: i) The appellants had already paid the re-quantified amount of service tax of Rs. 42,93,273/- before the order-in-original on various dates as disclosed in the ST3 Returns. Accordingly, the appellants are liable to pay an interest of Rs. 4,36,709/- of which they have already paid Rs. 1,85,525/- as confirmed in the impugned order, against Rs. 8,94,092/- confirmed by the Commissioner. Thus, the net interest liability works out to Rs. 2,51,184/- as detailed in the Annexure. ii) The entire pre-deposit of interest of Rs. 54,54,010/- has already been refunded to the appellants as per Deputy Commissioner's order dated 20.06.2019. iii) As such, the Commissioner's order app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Assistant Commissioner has also given a table showing the quantification of the interest. In response to the Department's quantification, the learned Counsel submitted that still the Department is incorrect in the quantification of the interest on the ground that in Order-in- Original dated 22.11.2011, the amount of tax involved in respect of Works Contract Service undertaken for M/s Ambuja Cement Limited during the period 2007-08 to 2009-10 was Rs. 42,93,273/- which is the amount confirmed in the de novo order dated 30.10.2020 but however in the calculation sheet submitted by the Department along with letter dated 19.04.2021, the interest is calculated at an amount of Rs. 51,56,865/- as can be noticed from the statement annexed there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein above. For this purpose, the matter is remanded back again to the Assistant Commissioner for re-quantification of the interest payable under Section 75. The appellant is also directed to assist the Assistant Commissioner in re-quantifying the demand of interest. As far as penalty amount under Section 78 is concerned, I do not find any justification to interfere because the same has been calculated on the basis of the directions issued by the Tribunal Order dated 25.02.2019. 7. In view of my discussion above, the impugned order is set aside and I remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of quantification of interest in view of various discrepancies pointed out by the appellant in their submission note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
