2018 (7) TMI 1791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nment Present for the Respondent: Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Additional Commissioner) A.R. ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After rejecting the request for adjournment, we proceed to decide the appeal. Accordingly we have heard Ld. A.R. and have gone through the impugned order. 2. The Commissioner vide impugned order has confirmed the demand of around Rs. 1.68 Crores for the period 1.4.2006 to 31....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss amount. Further, the demand stands assailed on the point of limitation. 4. Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue drew our attention to the detailed discussions of adjudicating authority. He has relied on the adjudicating authority's findings that the appellant are undertaking the erection and fabricating structurals. He has held the appellant's activity to be falling under the category of erect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bonafide belief and were not aware of the requirement of law. In these circumstances, the Revenue is justified in invoking the longer period of limitation. 5. After going through the impugned order, we find that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Neo Structo Construction Ltd. (supra) dealt with the activity of the fabrication and erection of the structurals for various industrial project a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the main contractor has discharged the service tax liability on the gross value of the contract given to him and the present appellant is only a sub-contractor, the entire exercise would be revenue neutral. As we are remanding the matter, the said fact would also be verified by the Commissioner. 7. Apart from that, we find that demand is barred by limitation. The appellant being an illiterat....