TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived by the Commissioner (Appeals), as the appellant was entitled to exemption. Further, the services rendered to the Government Companies post 30.06.2012, being of non-commercial nature, was also exempt under Notification No.25/2012-ST - all the demand of tax and penalties are fit to be set aside. Amount paid as tax is Revenue deposit, and directed to be refunded with interest (from the date of deposit till date of refund @ 12% P.A) - All penalties are set aside - Appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No.50791,50750-50751 & 50792 of 2019 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NOS.51852-51855/2021 - Dated:- 5-10-2021 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Pradeep Jain, Chartered Accountant for the appellant. Shri Pradeep Gupta, Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period 2010-2011 to 2014-2015, invoking the extended period of limitation along with interest and further penalty was proposed. 3. The appellant contested the show cause notice by filing reply, inter alia, stating that the demand is time barred. Further, RRVPNL is wholly a Public Sector Company of the Government of Rajasthan, which has been set-up for public welfare and public interest (after disintegration of State Electricity Board). As per Circular No.80/10/2004-ST, only commercial nature of building constructed are taxable. Admittedly, RRVPL is not engaged in any commerce or industry, hence, no service tax is chargeable. It is further urged that as per negative list of services vide circular no.12/2012-ST read with exemption no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is liable to pay service tax on the services provided to RRVPNL. The Commissioner held that prior to the period 30.06.2012, the service tax demand is fit to be set aside as the appellant is entitled to exemption under notification nos.11/2010 read with 45/2010-ST as services are provided to RRVPNL, which is engaged in transmission of electricity. Thus, it is observed that the services provided prior to 30.06.2012 are fully exempt. For the period from 1.7.2012, as the appellant is proprietorship concern and the services have been rendered to a Corporate Body RRVPNL, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay only 50% of the tax as per Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, for the period 1.7.2012 to 31.03.2015. Ld. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to sort out the issue of service tax. He also refers to the Circular dated 30.07.2012 issued by RRVPNL, which was in accordance with the Notification No.30/2012-ST, specifying the liability of the service tax on the principal and the contractor. He further urged that the appellant has already deposited more amount than the tax liability, as worked out by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the penalties imposed are fit to be set aside. He further urges that for some venial breach of law, penalty should not be imposed as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1978) 2 (ELT) J 159 (SC). B. Appeal No.ST/50750 of 2019(SM) M/s.Shree Ram Construction 8. Under the similar facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalties. D. Appeal No.ST/50792 of 2019 (SM) M/s.Ashapura Construction Co. 10. Under the similar facts and circumstances, this appellant has also done work for RRVPL and similarly the demand was raised and confirmed for the period 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 of ₹ 23,41,202/- along with interest and equal amount of penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as penalty under Section 77 (1)(c) and Section 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand for the period up to 30.06.2012 and confirmed the demand for the balance period of ₹ 7,25,532/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act along with penalty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
