9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... municated to the appellant vide letter dated 21.02.2007 thereby indicating that the sub-work of electrification for the Civil Court Complex at Pondicherry executed by them was liable to service tax under "Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service" [ECIS for short]. The above facts have been captured at para 02.01 of the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2012. Thereafter, through various letters/reminders dated 18.07.2011, 27.03.2012, 01.06.2012 and 11.07.2012 it appears that the Revenue requested the payment details through the Superintendent of Central Excise, Erode to which, vide letter dated 11.09.2012 the appellant appears to have furnished a copy of the Agreement wherein the scope of the work order was mentioned. It is only thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly filed by the notice, however, in the OIO No. 26/2013 ST-ADC, dated 29.07.2013 has confirmed the proposed demands. Strangely, in the said order the Additional Commissioner has not whispered anything about the earlier letter of the Superintendent dated 21.02.2007 anywhere in the OIO thereby ignoring material particulars on record, but also the plea of the appellant insofar as merits as well as its defense against invoking of the extended period of limitation are concerned. Naturally, aggrieved by the demands in the above OIO, the appellant appears to have preferred first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, the First Appellate Authority vide OIA No. 38/2014-ST, dated 28.01.2014 also having upheld the demands thereby rejecting thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was followed by reminders of various dates and hence, there is no dispute as to the starting point, which is 21.02.2007. The Show Cause Notice issued on 22.10.2012 is undoubtedly beyond the normal period, rather extending the larger period of limitation and hence, it was incumbent on the Revenue to prove that the appellant had suppressed facts with an intent to evade payment of tax. From a reading of SCN, the allegation against the appellant is that there was no voluntary compliance on its part despite several reminders and that the non-payment of service tax would have gone un-noticed but for the detection at the time of conducting audit by the departmental officers. This observation of the taxability in any case ought to have been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
