TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, for the period 1.10.06 to 15.12.2011. 2. Proceedings were initiated, invoking the extended period of limitation, by show cause notice dated 17.4.2012 stating that intelligence gathered revealed that appellant/petitioner had provided "Erection, Commissioning or Installation" services (ECIS) to recipient M/s L & T Ltd. during the period in issue; had received gross consideration (specified) for rendition of such services; failed to obtain registration; failed to file periodic returns and disclose gross consideration received; and failed to remit the due tax, despite providing the taxable service. 3. In response to the show cause notice, petitioner sent a letter dated 8.1.2013 simply asserting that it was not recompensed the component ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mits that no registration was obtained by the petitioner during the relevant period; but after the period in issue, petitioner obtained registration for rendition of ECIS, in the jurisdiction of the Raipur Commissionerate. 5. On perusal of the show cause notice and the impugned adjudication order we notice that while the petitioner was wholly uncooperative and had failed to furnish the relevant information and the transactional documents on the basis of which the Authority would have been able to proceed to a detailed and critical assessment of the liability if any, of the petitioner; had failed to provide even the work orders or any of them. Five sample work orders No.2009 dated 1.10.2007, No.574 dated 1.7.08, No. 887 dated 1.11.2009, No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 work orders. On this basis, we find no serious infirmity in the conclusion recorded by the adjudicating authority that the petitioner had provided ECIS to L & T Ltd., a taxable service under Section 65 (39a) read with Section 65(105)(zzd) of the Finance Act, 1994. 10. Regarding the challenge on the point of jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raipur, we notice that in terms of Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the petitioner has opted neither for centralised registration nor for registration at different sites in different States where works were executed were in favour of L & T Ltd. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Raipur, within the jurisdiction of the Raipur Commissionerate and operates within the domain of that Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ahmedabad-I for confirming demands of other Commissionerates seems to be beyond his jurisdiction. Be that as it may, we also find that the appellant has also not produced the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Integral Construction Company before the adjudicating authority. We also find strong force in the contentions raised by the Id. Counsel that for the demand within the Ahmedabad-I, requantification needs to be done as the appellant's claim of selling the biscuits, namkin, etc., has been accepted by the adjudicating authority, but he has not given any due weightage to such submission and for calculation of gross value of tax liability. We find that entire issue needs to be considered by adjudicating authority". We find no rati....