TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on "Inputs as also on Input services" used in providing the output services. 2. The appellants were awarded a contract by Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Limited, Gandhi Nagar (hereinafter referred to as GWRDCL for short) under the Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal Pipe Line Project for laying pipe lines from Adundra to Kherwa. The appellants by considering the said service as falling under the category "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services" paid the service tax on the same after availing the benefit of Modvat credit and filed due service tax returns with the department. 3. Based upon the enquiries conducted and investigations made, revenue entertained a view that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules by holding that the activities of laying down pipelines for GWRDCL does not amount to providing of any service and as such, appellant was not required to pay any service tax on the same. The excess credit availed by them thus stands confirmed by the Commissioner vide his impugned order. As regards second allegation, he found that provisions of rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 can be pressed into service only when the service provider is providing taxable as also exempted services. Inasmuch in the present case, the services of laying down pipelines has been held to be a non-taxable service, the same cannot be equated with exempted services and as such, rule 6(3)(c) cannot be invoked. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit was in the knowledge of department. He also submits that during the relevant period, various audits have taken place and certain queries as regards taxability of above service provided by the appellants, were raised. Subsequently, the audit objection so raised in Feb. 2006 and Jan. 2007, were closed, after considering their reply as intimated by the Superintendent vide letter dated 5-4-2007. As such, submits the learned advocate that the demand having been raised after the normal period of limitation is hopelessly barred. He also submits that there was a Board Circular No. 116/10/2009-ST, dated 15-9-2009, laying down that there were doubts in the field and clarifying that Canal System built by Government and Government Projects would n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Revenue, on the ground that such services being provided by them are taxable. It is only when the matter reached to the Tribunal, a view was taken that such services are not taxable. 8. In any case, learned advocate is not disputing on the non-taxability of the service being provided by them. His only contention is that the demand having been raised by invoking the extended period of limitation is hit by limitation. Admittedly, the appellant was paying service tax on the above services and were filing due returns with the department. Though, the above factual position does not stand disputed by the authorities, the same stands rejected by them on the ground that the appellant never disclosed in their periodical returns tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and when the Board was issuing circular in 2009 referring to the doubts and clarifying the issues, can it be said that the appellant paid service tax on the said activities with a mala fide intention to avail more Cenvat credit than the duty required to be paid by them. The answer to all these questions would be obviously, No. There is no evidence in the impugned order referring to any mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. In view of the above, we find favour with the appellant's contention that demand raised beyond the limitation is barred. However, inasmuch as a part of the demand is within the limitation period, the same is required to be confirmed. The Lower authorities....