2011 (1) TMI 799

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4/- coupled with Education of Rs. 70,367 and Higher Education cess of Rs. 35,318/- in respect of SCN dated 21-4-2009 followed by interest and penalty of Rs. 1,12,42,724/- and penalty of Rs. 36,37,809/- in respect of SCN dated 2-6-2008 and 21-4-2009 respectively u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty u/s 77 of the said Act. Adjudicating Authority held that the Appellant had provided 'commercial or Industrial Construction Service' and was liable to service tax for the period 10-9-2004 to 31-3-2007 and 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008. It was held that the appellant was collecting service tax on Ready (Mix Concrete being sold under composite contract under works contract since 1-6-2007 and raised bills for the same. The Authority held that evidence ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es were not involved. (ii)    The Commissioner has wrongly relied upon the statement of the Manager, Finance of the appellant to observe that it has started collecting service tax on sale of RMC since 1-6-2007 being sold under composite works contracts. That the appellant has considered its transactions as works contract cannot be the basis to hold that the contracts of the appellant were not sale contracts. The appellant's conduct cannot be the basis for deciding whether the transaction is sale or service. Since there is no estoppel against law, the issue has to be decided on its merit and not on what the appellant considered under erroneous understanding of the law. (iii)   The Commissioner has wrongly rejec....