TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntract' services during the relevant period from 2008-09 to 2012-13. On scrutiny of their records for the said period, it was noticed that the Appellants were even though engaged in providing the taxable service under the category of erection, commissioning and installation services and 'works contract services', but failed to discharge service tax. Later, they filed an application under VCES02013, which was rejected. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant for recovery of total service tax amounting to Rs. 16,81,53,261/- not paid for the period from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty, hence the present appeal. 3. At the outset, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....works were in connection with dam, Silchar (Seruli Mizoram) was for hydro-mechanical work i.e. dam generating electricity (hydral project); similarly, terminal project was for hydro-mechanical work, Chilewadi (Pune) was irrigation project etc. Similarly, all other projects mentioned in the said annexure are in relation to dams and hydro-electric project, therefore, not taxable under the category of 'work contract service'. Similar argument was also advanced in connection with the list of works contract executed as mentioned in Annexure 'C' to the Show Cause Notice. The learned Advocate submitted that even though gist of the respective work orders/contracts has been submitted before the Adjudicating authority, however, copies of the contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61,46,861/- and balance amount payable is Rs. 1,84,75,088/-. It is his contention that to determine the correct tax liability, this issue also be remanded to the Adjudicating authority. 5. The learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. We find that the Appellants have initially filed an application under VCES-2013, which on rejection, department issued a Show Cause Notice for recovery of service tax not paid on execution of various projects by the Appellant. The total service tax demanded for the period 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 is around Rs. 16,81,53,261/-. The contention of the Appellant t....