9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of service tax along with interest and penalty confirmed in the Order-in-Original. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant was awarded a contract by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) for the Construction of boundary and main gate at the sub-station at Daka and Gopalganj. The audit conducted on the records of PGCIL revealed that the Appellant had received an amount of Rs.21,60,967/- during the period 18.07.2006 to 10.05.2008. As the Appellant has not paid service tax on such receipts, a Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2011 was issued demanding service tax of Rs.78,341/-. The Notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner vide Order-in Original dated 25.10.2013, wherein the service tax demanded in the Notice was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding the receipts of Rs.1,27,505/- and Rs. 2,05,234/-, totally amounting to Rs. 3,32,739/- the Appellant submits that they were received in the financial year 2006-07. Also, the amount of Rs.3,49,639/- was received in the Financial Year 2007-08. In both the Financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08, their turnover was below the threshold limit of Rs.10 lakhs. Accordingly, they submitted that no service tax is payable on these receipts. 3.4. In view of the above, the Appellant submits that no service tax is payable by them and they prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to allow their appeal. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant for the above said services rendered. From the details submitted by PGCIL, we observe that the details tally with the submissions made by the Appellant in paragraphs 3 and 3.1 (supra). Accordingly, we agree with the submission of the Appellant that the amount of Rs.14,78,589/- was not received on 10.05.2008, but on various dates in the year 2004-05. Hence, the Notice issued on 30.09.2011 demanding service tax on these amounts received in 2004-05 is barred by limitation. Accordingly, we hold that the demand confirmed on this amount is liable to be set aside and we do the same. 7. We observe that the amount of Rs.1,27,505/- and Rs. 2,05,234/-, totally amounting to Rs. 3,32,739/-, was received by the Appellant in the Financial Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
