2018 (6) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsulting Engineer' and registered with Central Excise Department under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 for payment of service tax. It was alleged that they have not paid service tax of Rs. 18,99,196/- for the year 2000-01 and have short-paid service tax of Rs. 10,04,517/- during the period 2001-02. It has been alleged that the appellants have failed to pay service tax in terms of Section 68 at the rates specified under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 within the time specified under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. A show-cause notice dated 29.4.2004 was issued to the appellants by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. The same was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vide Order-in-O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity vide Order-in-Original No.5/2007 dated 15.1.2007 has taken into consideration the submissions made by the appellant and has concluded that admittedly the assessee is having three separate units having separate service tax registration; however, the assessee failed to produce any certificate from the concerned Income Tax Authorities to the effect that the Balance Sheet/ Profit and Loss Account filed with the Income Tax Authorities pertain to all the three units; the appellants have not produced any evidence regarding the discharge of service tax liability. The assessee is liable to pay service tax as alleged in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned counsel further contended that as regards their liability to pay tax, there are many decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and Supreme Courts in their favour and that the issue is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Turbotech Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd.: 2010 (18) STR 545 (Kar.), wherein in para 8 it has held as under: "8. From the combined reading of the definition of Consulting engineer prior to 2006 and after 2006, it is clear to the Court that the service rendered by the Company had not been included under the definition of consulting engineer prior to 2006 as it stood under Section 65(13). As a matter of fact, this Court has decided the sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pal: 2015 (37) STR 308 (Tri.-Del.) • Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn. Vs. CCE: 2016 (42) STR 37 (Tri.-Del.) 4.3 CESTAT Mumbai has also expressed similar view in the case of Korpan Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad: 2017 (51) STR 41 (Tri.-Mum.). 5. The learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and stated that the appellants have accepted part of their duty liability and have paid the same during the relevant period and have not agitated on this legal aspect before the adjudicating authority; therefore, the same cannot be taken at the appellate stage now. The departmental representative, moreover, contended that in case the CESTAT considers that the issue can be raised at this juncture,....