TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of Management, Maintenance or Repair (MMR), Commissioning & Installation Services, Rent-a-Cab (Ambulance service). During the verification of the P & L accounts of the appellant the values declared in the ST-3 returns, it was observed that there was a short payment of service tax inasmuch, service tax was not paid on gross values received for the services provided by them. The appellant had stated in the correspondences that they had undertaken sub-contracts to various clients such as Hindustan Steel Constructions Ltd., ACC, UB Engineering etc., and were under the bonafide impression that the service tax liability on the sub-contractor has not established hence did not discharged the tax liability; as regards the Management, Maintenance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scharged the tax liability with interest. It is his further submission that as regards the demand of Rs. 62,37,506/-, the entire demand is for the period prior to 15.06.2005 and the main contractor has paid the tax liability. On specific query from the bench, he could produce only certificate issued by two of the main contractors. He submit that the issue is now decided by the Tribunal in the case of Power Mech Projects Ltd., Vs. CC, Guntur [2017 (48) STR 165 (Tri.-Hyd)], Dhaneshra Engineering Works Vs. CCE, Allahabad [2018 (2) TMI 788-CESTAT, Allahabad] Lone Star Engineers Vs. CCE, Panchkula [2016 (9) TMI 489 CESTAT, Chandigarh]. It is his further submission that even for the period post the master circular clarifies that the demand can be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red and relined. This activity is in respect of goods and not in respect of immovable property, it is his submission that the demand has been correctly confirmed and the order needs to be upheld. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the entire issue is regarding non-payment of service tax on Repair and maintenance service undertaken for RINL as main contractor, non-payment of service tax on services as sub-contractor, non-payment of service tax on GTA services, non-inclusion of free issue materials supplied by RINL for short payment of service tax. 6. We find that the work orders issued by Visakhapatnam Steel plant are on record and on perusal of same, it seems that the work which has been entrusted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ategory only from 15.06.2005 hence the demand for the period prior to 16.06.2005 is unsustainable. The Commissioner's findings in the impugned order are that the contracts are for replacement of refractory bricks which are goods, and hence are not immovable in nature. We also notice that another point which has been raised by the Learned Adjudicating Authority for confirming the demand is the services were rendered for conveyor galleries and conveyor galleries are nothing short of equipment. We find from photographs of the conveyor galleries indicate as structures, it is on record that the work orders issued to appellant seems to be maintenance of conveyor galleries of immovable property. In our view, the ratio of the decision of the Tribun....