TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Finance Act 1994 for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006 and also confirmed the demand of interest under Section 75 and imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act under the classification of services "Maintenance or Repair Services" which was brought under Service Tax net by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.07.2003 vide Notification No. 7/2003 dated 20.06.2003. The appellant has paid the service tax and filed half-yearly return in Form ST-3 in terms of Section 70 of the Finance Act. On the basis of an investigation/enquiry by invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and on the basis of a cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... abatement on the gross value under Notification 19/2003 ST dated 21.08.2003 and 1/2006 ST dated 01.03.2006 and availing cenvat credit for payment of service tax and it appeared that the appellant was not eligible to claim abatement from value as well as cenvat credit facility. As such it appeared that there was a short payment of Rs. 46,57,842/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Two only) towards service tax + Rs. 76,768/- (Rupees Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight only) towards education cess totally amounting to Rs. 47,28,602/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Two only) during the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d provision of labour. Further the Commissioner in paragraph 25 and 26 of the Order-in-Original had also accepted the fact that the appellants have availed the credit of duty paid on inputs used for providing services. Further the purchase order clearly states that the order is for fabrication, supply of materials and erection, installation and commissioning. The Commissioner in the impugned order denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006 ST and 12/2003 ST on the ground that the appellants have availed the credit of duty paid on inputs used for providing the output services and hence the condition of Notification has been violated. He further submitted that the appellants were registered contractors of the Kerala State authorities and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carried out during the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2007, though the activity qualifies as 'Works Contract Service'. To counter this argument, the learned counsel submitted that merely because the appellant during the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2006 remitted service tax on 33% of the amount received under Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service would not make the appellant liable to pay service tax on the balance 67%, once the activity is held to be 'Works Contract Service'. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Poorva Bhattacharjee Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2019 (3) TMI 711 - CESTAT - Hyderabad b. Marine Corporation of India Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2019 (2) TMI 771 - CESTAT Hyderabad c. G.N. Build....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants have availed only the credit on input service and not the inputs which fact is evident from the Cenvat Register maintained by the appellant and also the amount of credit mentioned in the ST-3 return. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the activity of fabrication carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture and therefore no service tax is liable to be paid in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Neo Structo Construction Ltd. Vs. CCE & Cus. as reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R. 361 (Tri.-Ahmd.). Learned counsel also submitted that substantial demand is barred by limitation because the period for which the demand has been confirmed is 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006 by invoking the extended period ....