9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Department, appellant was issued with two show cause notices. The first show cause notice was dated 28.12.2020. In the said show cause notice, it was stated that as per the information provided by Income Tax Department, particularly the information in Form 26AS for the financial year 2015-16, appellant has received an amount of Rs.22,12,21,490/-. Therefore, on the said amount why service tax amounting to Rs.3,20,77,116/- should not be demanded and recovered from the appellant under extended period of limitation under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Another show cause notice dated 06.10.2021 was issued for the financial year 2016-17 on similar lines demanding service tax of Rs.3,67,02,062/- by invoking ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has confirmed the demand raised through both the show cause notices and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the show cause notices are issued by invoking extended period of limitation and the second show cause notice issued on 06.10.2021 is not sustainable in view of the ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise, AP reported at 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC). He has further submitted that even on merit, both the show cause notices are not sustainable because services provided by the appellant were provided to PWD of the State Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal's decision in the case of Sharma Fabricators & Erectors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad reported at 2017 (5) GSTL 96 (Tri.-All.) and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kush Construction vs. CGST NACIN, Kanpur reported at 2019 (24) GSTL 606 (Tri.-All.). 3. Heard the learned AR. Learned AR has supported the impugned order and submitted a copy of the ruling by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. reported at 1978 (2) ELT (J416) (SC). However, he did not elaborate on why he has submitted a copy of the said ruling. 4. We have carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions. We note that the original authority has taken cogn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that charging Section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 provides for levy of service tax at a specified percentage on the value of service. Section 67 of Finance Act provides that where service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value and such value shall be consideration in money charged by the service provider. Therefore, it is primarily important to determine the value on which service tax shall be levied at a specified percentage and such value should be the value of taxable service. Clause (44) of Section 65B of Finance Act, 1994 has provided for definition of service and it has elaborately dealt with a list of activities which shall not be included in such definition. Further, Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 has p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
