9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in dispute i.e., 2008-09 to 2012-13, the Appellant was engaged in the supply, erection, installation, testing and commissioning of firefighting systems, wet riser systems (equipment used to supply water through in-built water distribution systems within buildings for fire-fighting purposes) and sprinkler systems (used for supplying water at time of fire emergencies) to various divisions of PWD and CPWD for Government Buildings against the work orders awarded to the appellant. An investigation was initiated against the appellant vide letter dated 09.08.2012 and various documents were called upon by the Department. On scrutiny of documents/records submitted by the appellant, it was alleged that the appellant is supplying, testing, and commissioning of fire fighting equipments, wet riser system, sprinkler system etc. to various division of PWD and CPWD and the said work appears to be taxable under 'ECIS' or 'WCS'. It was also alleged that in absence of work orders, the Department cannot ascertain whether the works carried out by the Appellant fall under the definition of 'Original Works' or not. Thus, the Appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of exem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f service under which the demand is proposed and vide other two SCNs and OIO, the demand was proposed under ECIS but confirmed under WCS respectively. No specific taxable category of service is mentioned in the SCN. In absence of specific allegation by the department, the SCN and OIO are vague, hence Impugned Order confirming demand under 'WCS' is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the allegation put forth by the department while proposing and confirming service tax demand should be clear and specific. It is a settled principle of law that the onus is on the Department to issue show cause notice after full investigation and make precise allegations in the show cause notice, otherwise it will suffer from legal infirmity. In this regard, Ld. Counsel relied upon the following judgments: * M/s. Shubham Electricals Versus CST & ST, Rohtak dated 16.06.2015 cited as 2015 (6) TMI 786-CESTAT New Delhi - Affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi * M/s Varun Associates Vs. Commissioner, dated 26.04.2023 Service Tax, Delhi-I- CESTAT New Delhi. * ESS GEE Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, Jaipur dated 30.05.2019 cited as 2020 (34) GSTL 486 (Tri. Del.) Affirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to be dropped as the appellant has rendered services by way of installation and commissioning of fire fighting equipments, sprinkler system etc. to PWD and CPWD, which is a Department of Government, and the said activity is exempted from service tax vide entry 12 of the N. No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. He further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 stating that the said services are exempted from service tax. The same analogy should be adopted for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013, hence the demand for the said period is liable to be dropped. 7. As regards the demand confirmed under MMR demand Rs. 1,29,143/- the Ld. Counsel submitted that maintenance charges received during the period 2008-09 from CPWD/PWD towards the maintenance services had been carried out in respect of non-commercial Government buildings. Therefore, the said charges are not eligible to service tax in view of retrospective exemption provided by virtue of Section 98 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was confirmed for the period 2008-09 in respect of maintenance services rendered to PWD and CPWD. He submitted that maintenance services ren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the department is vague and arbitrary in nature as the same fails to mention specific category of service under which the demand is proposed. A perusal of the said SCN indicates that the department had gathered intelligence that the appellant was executing contracts with different Government agencies and providing taxable services, but not discharging his service tax liability. During investigations, the appellant was asked to submit requisite documents/details for verification such as ST-2, ST-3 returns, copies of contract/work orders executed in respect of maintenance & repair services, Erection & Commissioning Services & Works Contract Services, Balance Sheets, ITR, and other details for the financial years 2007-08 to 2011-12. However, the notice goes on to state that the appellant did not respond to the earlier letter and the subsequent two reminders. Subsequently, summons was issued, wherein the Sh Mukesh Goyal, CA appeared and sought extension of time. Thereafter, vide letter dated 21.12.2012, appellant submitted some of the documents. On scrutiny, the department noted that copies of all Balance Sheets, had not been provided. It was also noted that despite seeking cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Supreme Court in Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India & Ors. [18 [2007 (9) SCALE 197], held as follows: - ".....It appears that the competent authority has wrongly quoted Section 20 in the order of discharge whereas, in fact, the order of discharge has to be read having been passed under Section 22 of the Army Act. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law [see N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 278]. Thus, quoting of wrong provision of Section 20 in the order of discharge of the appellant by the competent authority does not take away the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 22 of the Army Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the appellant from the army service cannot be vitiated on this sole ground as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant." 10.3 Similarly, we note that the Supreme Court in N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatres & Ors [(2004) 12 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
