2018 (12) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en together for decision. Appeal No. ST/841/2011-CU[DB] Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was registered with Revenue vide Registration No. AACCA2945BST002 under the category of "Cleaning Services". The Revenue and appellant exchanged few letters and appellant vide letter dated 13.08.2007 informed Revenue that appellant were not liable to pay Service Tax on Cleaning Activities being performed in the township M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. since Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. was not a Commercial Organization and, therefore, was not covered by the levy of service tax on cleaning services. Thereafter Revenue collected information that appellant was also providing cleaning service to Government Hospital called SGPGI, Lucknow. It app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the appellant for the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10, Revenue noticed that appellant was having gross receipt of Rs. 5,43,04,895/-, 5,42,74,006/-, 5,08,02,857/- and 5,72,45,005/- respectively and when the same were compared by Revenue with the taxable value reflected in ST-3 return filed by the appellant Revenue noticed discrepancies, therefore, enquiries were initiated. Through letter dated 21.03.2011 appellant submitted to Revenue that all the cleaning services rendered by appellant were received by Government Agencies and as per clarification issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs through TRU letter dated 27.07.2005, if cleaning services are rendered to non-commercial buildings and premises the activities do not get covered wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ong with penalty. Aggrieved by that part of the impugned Order-in-Appeal through which demand of Service Tax of Rs. 18,65,775/- was survived appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal. Further aggrieved by the dropping of the demand of Rs. 29,16,549/- Revenue has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant for two appeals few by appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is undisputed fact that the organizations to whom appellant had provided service of cleaning activity are part of the Government Establishment either that of State Government or Central Government. He further submitted that through Instruction F No.B16/2005-TRU dated 27.07.2005 Department of Revenue, Ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat show cause notice dated 29.09.2011 covered period from 1st April, 2009 to 31st January, 2008 covered by earlier show cause notice dated 28.10.2009. Therefore, show cause notice dated 29.09.2011 is also not sustainable. 3. Heard the learned AR who has supported the impugned Order dated 04.03.2011 and confirmation of demand of Rs. 18,65,775/- along with equal penalty sustained through Order-in-Appeal dated 29.01.2014. Further he is pressed for allowing appeal filed by Revenue. 4. We have carefully gone through the records of the cases and submissions made. We first examine the limitation aspect in the present appeals. We find that the Revenue was having full knowledge of the activities of the appellant as early as 13.08.2007, however, b....