2014 (3) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....236/11) under Section 77 (1)(c) of Finance Act, 1994. 2. At the outset, Dr.Samir Chakraborty, Ld.Sr.Advocate for the Applicant have submitted that the subject of demand could be bifurcated; an amount of Rs.14.00 Crore relates to construction activities rendered by the Applicant relating to Government job only. The Ld.Advocate submitting the list of Government agencies pointed out that mostly the service receiver are Ministry of Industries, Rural Works Department, Road Construction Department, National Highway Division etc.. The Ld.Advocate submitted that in view of Board's Circular No.116/10/09-ST dated 15.09.2009, no Service Tax is liable to be paid when an assessee is occupied or engaged either wholly or primarily in executing the Go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat approximately there would be a liability of 38-40 Lakhs on the aspect of construction services. The Ld.Advocate makes a fair offer to deposit (approx.) Rs.50.00 Lakhs. 3. Shri Arvind Baheti, Ld.Chartered Accountant for the Applicant M/s.Usha Martin Ltd. submitted that the Ld.Commissioner has imposed penalty only on the ground that there was a delay in submission of the requisite information, which was directed to be submitted on 28.09.2007, but could be furnished only on 22.03.2010. Explaining the reasons for delay, Ld.Chartered Accountant submitted that the requirement of DGCEI kept on changing from time to time, thus, caused the delay in compilation of the data and its submission to the DGCEI. 4. Shri B.Saha, Ld.Special Counsel for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant within the factory premises of M/s.Usha Martin Ltd. The activity of cargo handling within the factory premises, prima facie, is covered by the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Modi Construction Co. (supra) which has been later upheld by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. However, since we are remanding the major portion of the demand we also expect that the Ld.Commissioner to examine this issue also in the light of the aforesaid judgements. At this stage, it is reasonable, before remanding the case that the Appellant be put into terms. Thus, the Applicant be directed to deposit, at least the liability which they acknowledge. Accordingly, we direct the Appellant to deposit Rs.50.00 Lakhs within a period of eight we....