2019 (3) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that they were providing work of reconditioning to Railways from June 2005 on agreements entered with Railways. The definition of Maintenance or Repair Service was amended with effect from 16.6.2005 to include inter alia, Maintenance or Repair Service including 'reconditioning or restoration or service of any goods or equipment excluding motor vehicle'. It therefore appeared that the appellants are liable to pay service tax under the category of Maintenance or Repair Service. They did not discharge the service tax on the above services. Further, during the period 2006 - 07, the appellant had wrongly availed abatement in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 on the value of materials without fulfilling the conditions prescrib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n bonafide belief, the appellant did not pay service tax for the taxable values received for the contract entered prior to 16.6.2005. For the period post 16.6.2005, they paid service tax after availing the benefit of abatement. The same is denied by the department stating that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition of the notification barring the availment of CENVAT credit. 2.1 She mainly argued on the ground of limitation. It is submitted by her that the appellant had not collected service tax from the Railways and the adjudicating authority had extended cum-tax benefit. This would show that the appellant was not aware that they are liable to discharge service tax and had not collected the same. This would show that the appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner of Service Tax, Kolkata - 2016 (42) STR 634 (Cal.) were also relied by the ld. counsel. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He argued that the appellant had not discharged the service tax although they had provided services to the Railways. Further, they had availed the benefit after availing credit on inputs and input services. This is in violation of the condition of Notification No. 12/2003. All these would go to show that the appellant has violated the provisions of law. They did not disclose the details to the department and therefore are guilty of suppression of facts for which reason the invocation of extended period is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The ld. counsel ....