TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of the amendments to the Finance Act, 1994, by way of insertion Section 97 and Section 98, through Finance Bill, 2012. The Adjudicating Authority had no occasion to follow these amendments. Moreover, considerable number of issues has been since settled by various judgments delivered in this regard. Moreover, copies of certain agreements and details of accounts were not submitted to the Adjudicating Authority. Under these circumstances, it will be in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice, the matter should go back to the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the case requires to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority, to examine the issue afresh in the light of copies of the documents submitted by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maintenance or Repair Service is concerned, that the same is exempted for roads by Notification No.24/2009 dated 27.07.2009; for the period prior to this, Section 97 was introduced vide Finance Bill, 2012 to exempt the service of maintenance, repair of roads for the period 16th June, 2005 to 26th July, 2009 and therefore, the demand on this count, which forms the major portion of the total demand, is liable to be set aside. 3. Coming to the demand of Service Tax on Management, Maintenance or Repair Service related to non-commercial Government buildings, he submits that the same has been exempted by insertion of Section 98 of Finance Act, 1994, through Finance Bills, 2012 and therefore, services rendered to Government buildings such as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT Chandigarh) Kumar Builders Vs CST, Service Tax Appeal No. 1453 of 2010 (CESTAT Chandigarh).. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.- 2022 (66) GSTL 476 (Tri. Kolkata) He further submits that the demand raised for the period after 01.06.2007 is also not sustainable as being demanded under wrong taxable category as held in Diebold Systems (P) Ltd.- 2008 (9) STR 546 (Tri. Chennai). 5. Learned Counsel further submits that they have provided services to Sunny View Estates Pvt. Ltd., Shapoorji and Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd. during the period 2008-09 and 2009-10; Section 26 (1) (e) of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 exempts Service Tax on services provided to developer; in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act, develop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od cannot be invoked as held in Gangadhar Bulk Movers Pvt. Ltd.- 2011 (11) TMI 358 (CESTAT Mumbai); moreover, the appellants are a Government contractor and most of the work undertaken by the appellant is in the public domain; therefore, no suppression of facts can be alleged on the appellant ; as clarificatory circulars were issued from time to time on the very same issue, it can be reasonably presume that the appellants had a bona fide doubt as to the taxability of the service; extended period cannot be invoked in view of Ashoka InfrawaysPvt. Ltd.- 2011 (32) STT (CESTAT Mumbai). Relying on Uniflex Cables Ltd.- 2011 (27) ELT 161 (SC) and Vijay Television (P) Ltd., C.M.A No. 3292 of 2009 (Madras HC). 8. Shri Rajeev Gupta, assisted by Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e table submitted by them with the rejoinder. He submits that out of taxable value of Rs,5,78,42,572/-, contracts are missing only for Rs.86,46,587/-. He submits that the Adjudicating Authority did not exclude VAT component from the amount received; the Department could have investigated instead of merely saying that some contracts are missing. Regarding the Pontoon Bridges, he submits that these bridges qualify to be structures as per Section 65 (105) (zzzza) as the Section does not exclude temporary structures from the purview of works contract. 10. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the Department has issued a show-cause notice and Annexure-2 was prepared to the show-cause notice. We find on going throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... press release dated 22.05.2018 pertaining to Sunny View Estates Pvt. Ltd. 12. Moreover, after the hearing was concluded, the appellants have submitted rejoinder dated 21.07.2023, in which they have attempted a reconciliation/ explanation to various works undertaken by them year-wise and party-wise. The Adjudicating Authority did not have the opportunity to go through the reconciliation as given in the rejoinder. Further, we find that most of the defence of the appellants is on the basis of the amendments to the Finance Act, 1994, by way of insertion Section 97 and Section 98, through Finance Bill, 2012. The Adjudicating Authority had no occasion to follow these amendments. Moreover, considerable number of issues has been since settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
