2014 (5) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hereinafter referred to as respondents) are engaged in providing services of construction of Industrial Buildings, Structures and Civil Work. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB in short) undertook expansion of Korba (East) Thermal Power Project for which Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (BHEL) and National Building Construction Co. (NBCC) were awarded the contract for construction activity. BHEL and NBCC in turn engaged the respondents for construction work. Respondents are registered with Service Tax Department in Hyderabad but did not take registration for their Korba activity. Investigations were taken up by Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) against the respondents for non-payment of Service Tax and responden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner reduced the demand amount by Rs. 7,69,58,748/- by calculating the demand amount by adopting the rate of service tax at 10% for the period up to March, 2006 and by considering the value received as cum-tax value. Considering the payments made, he held that short payment was to the tune of Rs. 5,48,91,041/- and was ordered to be recoverable. He allowed the benefit of abatement of 67% under Notification No. 15/2004-Service Tax for the period up to Feb'06 but included the value of free materials of Rs. 7,02,82,890/- issued to the respondent. For the period from Mar'06 to Mar'07 wherein the respondent has opted out of abatement scheme, Commissioner has allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit of Rs. 84,19,688/- on the Cement and Ste....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e period March, 2006 to March, 2007. Commissioner has allowed benefit of Cenvat credit to the respondents. He submits for single contract respondents are eligible either for Cenvat facility or abatement benefit and this finding of the Commissioner is not proper and legal. He further submits that refund of Rs. 4,27,813/- is not admissible to the respondents and doctrine of unjust enrichment has to be applied to any on refund payable to assessee. He also argues that non-imposition of any penalty on the respondent is bad in law and on fact of this case. 5. Ld. Advocate appearing for respondents submits that Notification 15/2004 was rescinded on 28-2-2006 therefore there is no question of availment of benefit of this notification after ....