TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er ,Service Tax (Adjudication), New Delhi. The impugned order confirmed a cumulative tax demand of Rs. 30,94,91,352/- pursuant to four show cause notices dated 20.4.2010, 21.10.2010, 21.10.2011 and 23.10.2012, covering the block period 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2012. 3. Proceedings were initiated on the premise that appellant had provided Commercial or Industrial Construction service during the relevant period, received consideration therefor and failed to file returns and remit service tax due. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of an investigation by the Anti-Evasion Branch. The appellant failed to cooperate either during the process of investigation or during adjudication. Appellant neither furnished documents nor responded to the sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the periods 2007-08 to 2011-12 and on the basis of actual figures available (derived from the income tax returns and balance sheets submitted to the income tax authorities for the period 2005-06 to 2006-07 and computing the turnover for each year subsequent 2006-07 which was taken as the base year, the demand was confirmed by the impugned order. 6. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate for the appellant states that the appellant had provided construction services exclusively under work contracts for the entire period in issue; that works contract is not taxable prior to 1.6.2007 in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in C.S.T. vs. Larsen & Toubro 2015 (39) STR 913; that the actual consideration received for rendition of works con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2) SCC 645 that in works contract, since there is a fusion to two distinctly taxable aspects, namely rendition of service and deemed transfer of goods involved in execution of the works; service tax is leviable only on those aspects amounting to rendition of service and excluding deemed sale of goods. Whether the appellant had in fact provided the works contract service is of course a question of fact. It is so asserted in the appeal for the first time but has not been so asserted or pleaded before the adjudicating authority. 9. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the adjudicating authority. We do so by setting aside the impugned order but on stringent terms as to costs. We s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal defences before the adjudicating authority in de novo proceeding, but on costs of Rs. 5 lakhs, which shall be remitted to the credit of the Union Government, within 30 days from today. 10. For the reasons recorded supra, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner for de novo adjudication. The appellant shall furnish complete details of all the works executed along with relevant transactional documents in respect of each of the works executed during 2004-05 to 2011-12; plead all relevant aspects that the appellant chooses, including pleas as to its immunity to the levy and collection of tax; the non-leviability of works contract to service tax prior to 1.6.2007; and other pleas with regard ....