Appeal Dismissed, Tribunal's Order Upheld

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court upheld the Tribunal's order, confirming the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the demand of service tax, recovery of interest, and imposition of penalties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Wrong invocation of jurisdiction.
2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur.
3. Confirmation of demand of service tax invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73 of the Act.
4. Recovery of interest under Section 75 of the Act.
5. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Wrong Invocation of Jurisdiction:
The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority (Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur) lacked territorial jurisdiction as the work was executed outside Raipur's geographical limits, specifically in West Bengal, Orissa, and Bihar. The Tribunal found that the appellant's head office and residence were in Raipur, and all work orders were executed from Raipur. The appellant did not dispute jurisdiction initially and only raised the issue later, which the court found inappropriate. The court held that the power conferred upon the competent authority with reference to 'territorial jurisdiction' is not an instance of total lack of jurisdiction, so as to make the order null and void.

2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's head office was in Raipur, and the appellant had not registered centrally or regionally, thereby confining jurisdiction to a particular place. The appellant's sister concern was also registered in Raipur. The court found no reason to deviate from the Tribunal's finding that the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur had jurisdiction.

3. Confirmation of Demand of Service Tax Invoking Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant contended that the work done amounted to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Act and hence was outside the purview of service tax liability. The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities did not constitute manufacturing as the appellant did not own the raw materials and the products were not independently marketable. The Tribunal also found that the appellant's non-registration amounted to suppression of facts, justifying the invocation of the extended period of five years under the proviso to Section 73 of the Act.

4. Recovery of Interest Under Section 75 of the Act:
The court upheld the recovery of interest under Section 75, as the appellant failed to pay the service tax due to non-registration and suppression of facts. The appellant's argument that M/s. L&T had already paid the service tax was rejected, as the appellant was responsible for its tax liability.

5. Imposition of Penalties Under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Act:
The appellant argued that penalties should not be imposed as they acted on M/s. L&T's advice. The court found that the appellant's failure to register and pay service tax was not bona fide, especially since the appellant had registered a sister concern providing similar services. The court held that the appellant's conduct did not warrant relief under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and upheld the penalties.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court found no substantial question of law and upheld the Tribunal's order, confirming the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the demand of service tax, recovery of interest, and imposition of penalties.

---