TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stating that though they were contractors of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (referred as MCGM), they were not reconditioning any goods equipments, maintenance or management of any immovable property etc., hence they did not qualify as provider of taxable service. On verification of various documents and work order submitted by the respondent during the course of investigation Service tax authorities were of the view that services provided against work order as detailed below will fall within category of taxable service defined as "Management, Maintenance and Repair Services." S No Work Order No Scope of Work Work order Cost 1 Dy. Ch Eng./10141Rds & Tr dtd 23.01.2008 Widening and improvement of various roads to eastern suburbs in S Ward (s-1) 98525578 2 Dy. Ch Eng./10141Rds & Tr dtd 23.01.2008 Widening and improvement of various roads to eastern suburbs in S Ward (s-2) 68965810 3 Dy. Ch Eng./170/swd/es dtd 09.04.2008 ES-22 Training and widening of boundary nalla 101696495 4 CE/PD/7166/II dtd 06.11.2006 Repair to Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Municipal Maternity Home. 13111761 5 CE/PD/425/II dtd 28.07.2006 Beautifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed documents and for not submitting the information in response to summons and intentionally suppressing the information. v. Penalty under Section 78 of the Act, 1994 should not be imposed on M/s Navdeep Construction Company for failing suppressing the value of taxable service with intention to evade the Service Tax. 2.4 The show cause notice has been adjudicated by the Commissioner, as per his order referred in para 1, supra. 2.5 Aggrieved by the order, revenue has preferred this appeal. In response to the appeal, respondent have filed the cross objection. 3.1 In their appeal, revenue has assailed the impugned order and stated as follows: i. The adjudicating authority has in his order merely harped on the fact that the charges in the notice were scantily drafted while proposing that services provided by the respondent were taxable as Management, Maintenance or Repair Services. The fact that the said notice was not elaborate cannot be a reason to drop the same. ii. Te adjudicating authority erred in merely examining the nature of activities mentioned in contracts listed from 1 to 12 of the table appearing at page of the impugned order. Adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han examining the issue vis a vis the evidences gathered during the investigation and the reply submitted by the noticee. ii. Adjudicating authority failed to consider all the evidences that were produced before him during the course of adjudication proceedings. iii. He has failed to appreciate that apart from the contracts mention in the table in show cause notice there were large number of other contracts. No findings have been recorded contract wise for all the contracts. iv. Adjudicating authority has held that extended period of limitation would not be applicable in the present case. The said finding is contrary to the facts available on record. The case came to light only as result of investigations undertaken by the anti evasion. All the documents were either called for from the respondents on summon or recovered or resumed from them. Since the information with regards to provisioning of the taxable service was never disclosed to the department respondents were definitely guilty of suppressing the relevant facts hence the extended period of limitation was definitely applicable in the facts of the present case. v. The services provided by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal by both the sides and the impugned order. 5.2 Since the appeal filed by revenue refers to 94 contracts that were subject matter of show cause notice, whereas we found that only twelve were referred to in show cause notice, Authorized Representative appearing for revenue was directed by us to produce the complete adjudication file and the review file for examination. However even after adjournment of the matter twice the same could not be produced. Learned Authorized Representative produced a letter dated 12.12.2018 of the Additional Commissioner 9Review) CGST Mumbai West stating that the said files cannot be traced. Said letter of the Additional Commissioner is reproduced below: 5.3 Since the revenue has failed to produce the files which are not traceable, we are not in position to accept the contention of the revenue that there were 94 contracts under consideration in show cause notice. Hence the matter needs to be limited to the contracts referred to in show cause notice. 5.4 Respondents had in their response to show cause as recorded by Commissioner in para 38.1 to 38.6 of his order, submitted the detail service rendered by respondent to MCGM year wise and servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly invoked for doing so. Also, ST (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 are not applicable here and are wrongly invoked. Further, the 3CD statement submitted by NCC only supports their stand in the given circumstances. In view of the detailed discussion foregoing, it is evident that the SCN is egregious and improper in not considering and discussing on the record proper, adequate and reasonable material and evidence in order to support and sustain the allegation made resulting in the liability of the Noticee to ST under MMRS. The issue required for determination at '(1)' above, is thus decided accordingly." 5.8 Issue (ii) is discussed in para 78 to 81 and in para 81 following is recorded: "Hence, for non-observation of the accounting principles and the resultant violation of the provisions of ST law, in this regard, the SCN would be liable to be set aside. In this background and situation, in fact, I agree with the Noticee's submission that as held by the various Hon. Courts and Tribunals that when allegation is based only on financial accounts and figures mentioned in Balance Sheet are taken for the purpose of charging ST, such demand is bad and cannot sustain in the ey....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hE/7199/07-11-01 4 DyChE/0410/17-01-02 5 DyChE/1172/28-02-02 6 DyChE/5901/29-08-02 7 DyChE/6684/07-10-02 8|DyChE/6685/07-10-02 9 DyChE/5622/02-12-02 10 DyChE/8332/06-02-03 11 DyChE/8634/20-01-04 12 DyChE/8631/20-01-04 NAME OF WORK C/220 C.C.ROAD WORK 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 ANNEXURE 'C' 2009-10 TOTAL POSTAL COLONY SWD 246507 N.A.D.NALLA WORK 683003 0 0 BAJI PRABHU DESHPANDE WORK 714944 0 0 MANKHURD NALLA WORK 0 357008 VINAY MANDIR NALLA 01 308109 507133 BILWAKUNJ SWD WORK 122530 167494 0 DEONAR DUMPING WORK/G.M.LINK RD. 588499 272990 0 KESHAR BAUG NALLA WORK 1136598 0 0 797363 COLLECTOR COLONY NALLA 263059 0 0 183381 0 361592 0 MAHAKALI NALLA WORK 0 150818 154448 13 CE/PD/1645/01-05-04 NARAYAN NAGAR SWD WORK L'WARD WORK 1059894 1142 42371803 11683104 157787 3658260 14 DyChE/3481/10-08-04 15 DyChE/3851/27-08-04 BAINGANWADI NALLA WORK N'WARD CULVERTS WORK 20973601 1387004 0 166950 5318159 364251 464312 16 DyChE/4506/23-09-04 17 DyChE/....