TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of penalties imposed on them under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee was undertaking job-work of rebuilding of old worn-out rollers, liners, tyres and old worn-out components of cement plants, steel plants etc. during the material period. It appears that, upto 31-3-2005, they were paying the State VAT on approximately 70% of the total value of the contract and service tax on the rest of the value. From 1-4-2005, the assessee paid VAT on 80% of the contract value and service tax on 20% of the contract value. During the entire period, they remained registered with the department as providers of 'maintenance and repair services'. They did not opt to get registered as providers of 'works-contract' service even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of the contract for the period upto November 2006 and that, accordingly, whatever service tax found by the auditor to have been short-paid by the assessee was paid by the latter. In this connection, our attention has been invited to letter dated 16-12-06 of the Superintendent (Audit) and the statement annexed thereto, which indicates that, for the period from July 2003 to November, 2006, an amount of Rs. 1,23,757/- was found to have been short-paid by the party. This amount was paid by the appellant. The ld. Consultant has also fairly pointed out that a subsequent audit done by the Superintendent was not in favour of the assessee. The view taken in the second audit was to the effect that the party was liable to pay service tax on the ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is liable to be sustained. The JCDR has also claimed support from decisions on merits as well as on limitation. One of the decisions cited by him pertains to works-contact. We have already noted that the assessee has not opted for works-contract. Therefore, there is no need, at present, to consider the said decision cited by the JCDR. The other decisions have been cited by him in the context of the assessee's plea of limitation, which also we have considered. These decisions include Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, Hyderabad [1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 (Tri. - LB)] wherein it was held by the Larger Bench that the department's knowledge of the assessee's alleged irregularity or offence was not material to the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) of the Central Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit of the Notification would prima facie be inadmissible to them. In other words, the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case on merits. 5. However, certain audit proceedings in this case appear to be lending a helping hand to the appellant in the context of their plea of limitation being considered. The internal audit officer of the department, who audited the S.T. 3 returns filed by the appellant for the period from July 2003 to November, 2006, found that, though in some cases the party paid service tax on 20% of the total value of contract, in other cases, their payments of service tax were short of this limit. The short-payment of Rs. 1,23,757/- was worked out by the auditor for the above period, which was paid by ....