2013 (4) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the principles of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed whereby the demand for differential service tax has been confirmed and penalties for differential service tax has been confirmed and penalties under various Sections of Finance Act, 1994 have been imposed. 2. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant had taken registration as a service provider of erection, commissioning and installation agency and the industrial construction service. It is his submission that in respect of the contracts and the subject matters of dispute, the appellant had in fact undertaken erection of structures only and not plant, equipment, machinery etc. He submits that while in the ST-3 return, the service tax was shown as paid u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y them were correctly classifiable as works' contract and therefore would be liable from 1-6-07 only. The ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue would submit that the fact that appellants had erected only structure and not plant, equipment and machinery etc. was never raised prior to issue of show cause notice and further he also submitted that this could not have been raised at the time of reply to show cause notice. Further, he also submitted that there are decisions taking the view that the value of the goods supplied free of cost is liable to be included for the purpose of levy of service tax. Further, as regards the works' contract he submitted that it was never claimed by the appellant that the service provided by them was works' contrac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the service tax has been shown as paid under the category of commercial or industrial construction service. Apparently there was a mistake in the assessment and therefore in the absence of any revision of assessment by the Revenue, it may not be fair to deny the appellant to claim classification under either of the heads at this stage. On this ground also, there is a need to examine the claims made by the appellants that what they had erected was structures and not plant, machinery or equipment. 5. The ld. Counsel also made a submission that they would undertake not to claim refund of the Service tax already paid by them prior to 1-5-06. 6. Since the issue as to whether the appellant had erected only structures or major portion of the w....