TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,42,95,020/- pertaining to Show Cause Notice dated 20/04/2011, Rs. 1,04,77,664/- vide Show Cause Notice dated 21/10/2011 and Show Cause Notice dated 21/12/2012 amounting to Rs. 1,58,88,820, respectively which in aggregate works out at Rs. 12,06,61,504/- under the various provisions of Finance Act, 1994 (hereinwith referred to as 'Act') 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service tax commissionerate STC No. AAFCA5305CST001 dated 24/03/2006 for 'erection, commissioning or installation services' which is leviable to service tax with effect from 1/07/2003, consultation services/ commercial or industrial', which is leviable to service tax with effect from 10/09/2004, and 'consulting engineering service' whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the project/ supplying/ installation/ testing/ commissioning/ distribution boards/ lighting/ fixture/ feeder pillars/fire deduction system/ music system and public address system and other electrical and electronic devises, and wiring of telephone, computer and telephone, point wiring, earthing, ( mains/ sub mains) etc., in civil structure such as industrial and commercial structure, the Government building the airports, hospitals( private as well as Government), educational institute etc. 4. After scrutiny of various contracts, the above show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant asking the payment of duty as indicated under the provisions of Act, and the provisions of Rules and also under Section 66 and 68 of Finance Act, 1994 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order has been passed in complete defiance of law by denying the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20/06/2003, on the ground that the copy of the Sales tax returns/ profit and law accounts/ invoices have not shown the sale of goods/ mentioned separately. (iv) It is also submitted that the appellant is not liable to service tax in respect of those projects on which service tax has been discharged under 'work contract composition scheme' and also that the impugned order is not sustainable as it levied service tax on the pure sale of the goods and trading activities, which is un-constitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 6. It is also submitted that the impugned order has also charged the service tax by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ambit of definition of 'WCS' 70,18,652 21,65,833 0 91,84,485 Demand in r/o residential complexes of Government employees is not tenable as the same is meant for personal use and outside the ambit of WCS 88,88,732 1,37,832 10,724 90,37,288 8. Without prejudice to above, demand of Rs. 19,38,375/- is liable to dropped on the basis of incorrect calculation. The abatement of the 67 % as per the Notification 12/2003-ST was also required to be provided by the Adjudicating Authority while adjudicating the case. The Adjudicating Authority has also erred in charging the service tax on paid tax on the amount under the composition scheme/ Rule 2A of Service Tax Composition Rule. Also the computation of demand prior to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 (33) STR 77 (Tri-Mum)] dated 13.06.2013 9. In view of above he prayed that the demand is required to be worked out again in view of the submissions made by the appellant and also following the ration laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of L & T and other judgments as indicated above. 10. Ld AR, on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the ground contained in the impugned order for confirmation of demand. 11. After considering the rival submissions and perusal of case records, we find that the impugned order is having various infirmities as raised by the Ld.CA on behalf of the appellant. The service provided by the appellant pertain to 'work contract services' which is leviable for service tax only after 1/06/2007, and therefore....