9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, it was found that the Appellant was providing manpower supply services to mainly M/s. L & T Ltd. They had awarded various contracts for Construction of Road and Rail Metro in respect of which the appellant had claimed to have provided works contract service which on scrutiny found to be Manpower Supply services and was not exempted as claimed by the them under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Similarly, it was observed that the Appellant has claimed exemption to the supply of manpower supply to SEZ wherein they acted as sub-contractor to M/s. L & T who was awarded the main contract. Further, on scrutiny of the ST-3 returns vis-à-vis the documents withdrawn it was also noticed that the appellant had charged and collected service tax of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing reimbursements from the service recipient against actual expenditure incurred by the appellant. Till March 2015, the value of reimbursements was not a part of the taxable services as the Supreme Court Judgment dtd. 07.04.2018 in the case of UOI Vs. M/s. Inter-continetal Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. The impugned order covers the period Upto March 2015, so the taxable value in this case would be restricted to 3.5% service charges of the gross wages in the work order amount which is explicitly mentioned in all the contracts executed in M/s L&T. 2.1 He also submits that as can be seen from the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant to the department during the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2015, the detail of exempted services was always ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case can be disposed of on the ground of limitation itself. 4.1 We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of service tax for the period July 2012 to March 2015 on the ground that the benefits and exemptions claimed by the appellant is not correct and they required to pay the service tax. We find from the records and copy of ST-3 produced before us that appellant had been filing the ST-3 returns regularly to their Jurisdictional Range Officers. It is on record that the appellant shown all the details in ST-3 Returns. We find that Appellant has shown the details of exempted services in their all the ST-3 Returns and has also shown the fact that they were availing exemptions. 4.2 We also find that Appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court held that when there are conflicting judgments of the Tribunal, the assessee may have a bona fide belief that service tax is not payable and in such a situation, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked by the Department. In Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) = 2007 taxmann.com 532 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there is a scope for entertaining a doubt about the view to be taken, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 4.4 We find that there is nothing on record to show that any suppression of facts or wilful misstatement were made on the part of the appellant who has filed periodical ST-3 return regularly and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
