TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....currency of service tax registration, the appellant was engaged in commercial construction activities with M/s Ind Synergy Ltd.,Raigarh (for short 'the ISL') and therefore raised bills in the year 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 for payment towards the work performed by appellant. On the basis of intelligence gathered by the Revenue that ISL had engaged the appellant for the work of site preparation, land development, civil and structural construction, the information was sought from the ISL, who vide letter dated 9.6.2008 provided the information sought for along with the list of contractors to whom they awarded contracts and year-wise details of payments made by them. On receipt of such information, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range - Service Tax, Bilaspur called upon the appellant to furnish information with respect bills raised on the ISL from beginning, details of amount received and details of service tax paid. When the appellant did not furnish the information as sought for, the ISL was directed to supply the same, but the ISL also not furnished any detail/information despite repeated request letters. Thereafter, copies of ledgers of the appellant, which were main....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid reasons, the Adjudicating Authority held that the amount received for the work performed by the appellant is taxable and service tax is to be paid along with interest. It was also held that despite repeated requests, the appellant failed to submit any material before the authority to establish the contentions raised by him in his reply. The Adjudicating Authority ordered for recovery of Rs. 6,92,606/- towards service tax; Rs. 13,534/- for education cess and secondary & higher education cess of Rs. 2,390/- under Section 73 of the Act of 1994 with a further direction that the service tax already paid shall be adjusted against the demand confirmed, subject to its verification. Interest on the amount of service tax recoverable was also imposed at the prescribed rate under Section 75 of the Act of 1994. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 200/- per day has been imposed for late payment of the service tax under Section 76 of the Act of 1994. 5. The order of Adjudicating Authority was challenged in an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal, Customs & Central Excise and the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority for the reasons recorded therein, except the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the appellant was registered with the Service Tax Department and was aware of the fact that the service rendered by him comes within the purview of 'taxable service', but he did not deposit service tax. In fact, the appellant avoided to pay service tax. He also submits that the authorities have also considered the argument with regard to the abatement of 67% of the gross value for the purpose of calculating service tax and it was held that appellant could not be able to furnish any document showing the cost of construction materials included in the amount charged by them or the same were supplied free of cost to the appellant and therefore gross value receipt has been made taxable. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent that even the Appellate Authority held that as no document or record was supplied by the appellant to get exemption except the copy of certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, therefore, service tax charged on the gross value is correct and sustainable in law. He submits that as the appellant is engaged in providing service, the authorities have rightly imposed tax on the amount received by appellant against the service provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount to the appellant towards the work done by him as one of the contractors and on query being made by the authorities, no document was produced by appellant to prove contents of reply. Even the contract agreement was not filed but for the certificate issued by Chartered Accountant. 10. The Appellate Authority while affirming the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority has held as under:- "4.5. Section 65A states the principles for classification of taxable services. Classification of a composite service is based on that component of the service which gives the essential character. There is a need to determine whether a given transaction is the one containing major and ancillary elements or the one containing multiple and separate major elements. In the case of a transaction containing a major and ancillary elements, classification is to be determined based on the essential features or the dominant element of the transaction. A supply which comprises a single supply from an economic point of view should not be artificially split. The method of charging or invoicing does not in itself determine whether the service provided is a single service or multiple services. Sing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r though has been mentioned but contract copy for bifurcation of each activity is not made available. Thus impugned order for recovery of service tax on the gross values charged and received by the Appellant is found to be correct and sustainable before the law. Held accordingly. 5. Regarding imposition of penalty I agree with the view of Adjudicating authority as discussed in the para 20 of the impugned order. In the instant case the appellant has wilfully suppressed the facts regarding the activities of providing taxable services. They did not disclose the details of taxable values in ST-3 returns. On the contrary the Appellant mis-stated the facts in ST-3 return and surrendered Service Tax Registration number with an intention to avoid payment of service tax. Further the Appellant also did not furnish the relevant documents and details when asked for by the department. In view of the above, the extended period of five year as provided under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was correctly been invoked in this case. 6. With regard to grant of immunity from penalty under Section 80 of the Act. It is noticed that though the appellant has provided construction ....