TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tract entered into by the appellant and the appeals are in respect of 4 different units belonging to the same appellant located at 4 difference places and the issue is same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are registered with Service Tax Department and were providing various services. On 28.12.2009 appellant entered into an agreement with M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (which was latter on assigned to M/s Bajaj Energy Pvt. Ltd.) The agreements were for setting up of 5 Thermal Power Plants of 90MW each situated at 5 different locations including 4 locations associated with present 4 appeals. As per Clause 2.2.1 of the said contract dated 28.12.2009 read with schedule 3 of the said contract. The component of procurement and supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,06,38,201/- 4. 70686/2016 101 Kunderkhi 2010-11 to 2012-13 16/02/2015 4,21,69,752/- 47,04,352/- It was alleged in the said show cause notices that appellant did not choose for payment of service tax under works contract composition scheme and therefore, the value itself appeared to be proper by resorting to Rule 2A of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. It was alleged in the show cause notice that appellant had vivisected service portion of the works contract into 4 subheads and paid service tax treating each subhead as separate service and the same did not appear to be in accordance with the provisions of law. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that the entire contract dated 28.12.2009 was prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra-11 of the show cause notice states to be ST-3 return filed for the relevant period, the returns were filed in time and therefore, extended period of limitation is not available to the Department, since burden is cost upon revenue to prove suppression etc. 4. The Original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed part of the demand and dropped part of the demand as stated in the table in the aforesaid para. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant is before this Tribunal in the above stated 4 appeals. 5. Heard Shri Piyush Kumar learned Advocate along with Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. They have submitted that through the impugned order, Original Adjudicating Authority has held in para no.25 of the Order-i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evant ST-3 returns, was wrong. They further submitted that since all the particulars entered in the ST-3 returns were found to be appropriated, there was no suppression nor any misstatement nor any intention to evade payment of duty and therefore, extended period was not available to revenue. They further submitted for invoking extended period of limitation essentially pre-requisite is existence of fraud or collusion or willful misstatement of facts or contravention of any provisions of Service Tax Law with an intention to evade service tax which essentially means a positive act of contumacious conduct or willful defiance of law with an intention to evade tax and that in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals, there were no evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Service and Business Auxiliary Service. Inspite of that in the subsequent paragraph, he has taken into consideration the entire amount received by the appellant from balance sheet for various years and deducted the value of the material used and from remaining portion calculated service at applicable rate and confirmed the demand. While doing so, he has not given any finding on the extended period of limitation as applicable in the present case particularly, when the appellant had raised the said issue before him and relied upon various case laws. We find that the reliance for issuance of show cause notice is placed on ST-3 returns filed by the appellant. From the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original, we could not come across a....