TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....992 Supply of Transformers and Equipment and conducting of Type Testing, by the Appellants on Ex-Works basis. Rs. 75,50,80,000 [copy in Paper-book] Contract for provision of various services Third C-47210-S0163/CA-II/2992 Provisions of various services by the Appellants, including services of: (1) Inland Transportation of goods imported by PGCIL from Ganz, Hungary; (2) Providing training; (3) Erection service; and (4) Works Contract services of installation, including civil works. Rs. 8,81,96,000/- 10,00,000/- 16,80,00,000/- (Copy in Paper Book) Total Value of Services Rs. 25,71,96,000/- b) The total value shown in the contract for provision of services was indicative value, since the amount was dependent on the actual quantum of services to be provided, as well as the contract was also subject to price variation clause. Therefore, though the total amount was indicated in the contract, the actual total value was dependent on the actual quantum of services provided by the Appellants, and the actual prices as determined at the time of execution of the contract, subject to variations in the prices of the materials. c) Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.12%, the Appellants on their own, voluntarily made payment of the differential Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,01,91,385/-, under intimation to the Department. The Appellants also paid interest amount of Rs. 6,44,201/- on the said differential Service Tax. j) The total value of services of erection and works contract actually provided under the Third Contract worked out to Rs. 15,79,05,395/- (inclusive of VAT and Service Tax) and the total Service Tax payable on the same worked out to Rs. 1,50,77,260/- on cum-tax value of Rs. 15,43,31,885/-. k) The details of Service Tax liabilities and the actual amount of Service Tax payable and paid are as given below: Total Value of Services actually provided Description Value as per Contract Rs. Actual value as per invoices Rs. Service Tax liability Rs. Inland Transportation & Insurance Charges including port handling charges/port clearance charges wherever applicable Covered by negative list at entry (p)(i) of Section 66D, and otherwise also Service Tax was payable by the recipient under Reverse Charge Mechanism 8,81,96,000 7,39,55,968 NIL Installation/Erection Charges, including civil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service contracts. 4. However, despite holding as above in favour of the Appellants, the Principal Commissioner confirmed demand for the Service Tax for Rs. 2,82,92,476/- @ 12.36% by taking the total projected contract value as service for Rs. 25,71,96,000/-, as cum-tax value (i.e. Service Tax of Rs. 2,82,92,476/- @ 12.36% on value of Rs. 22,89,03,524/-, totaling to Rs. 25,71,96,000/-), and ordered appropriation of Service Tax of Rs. 2,07,87,860/- already paid by the Appellants, hence this appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that ld. Commissioner has mis-conceived and erred in taking the amount of projected gross turnover at Rs. 25,71,96,000/-, as taxable turnover on cum tax basis, instead of taking the value of service actually provided, which is relatable to the invoices raised. The amount of Rs. 25.71 crores was the appox value of the three contracts, as is evident from the table given hereinabove. The actual gross turnover during the period under dispute with regard to the services, including material provided PGCIL was Rs. 23,18,61,363/-. 6. During the period of dispute, the appellant has raised the bills on the basis of the actual work done. Further, the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has no legs to stand. It is evident from the face of the record that the show cause notice was issued proposing demand of Rs. 14.20 crores approx. Whereas the demand confirmed in the impugned order is Rs. 2.83 crores approx. Ld. Counsel urges that the impugned order may be set aside on the ground of limitation alone, as extended period of limitation is not attracted. Admittedly, there was correspondence between the appellant and the Department prior to the period Jan. 2012, wherein the appellant have provided all the details as per the requirement/notice. However, the show cause notice has been issued only on 13.10.2015, which is more than 3 years since Jan. 2012. 10. Ld. Counsel prays for allowing their appeal with consequential benefit in accordance with law. 11. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Department has relied on the impugned order. 12. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the impugned order is erroneous and mis-conceived as service tax has been demanded on the apparent gross value, as per contract/ agreement, of Rs. 25,71,96,000/-. The same is also in contrast to the findings of the ld. Commissioner. All the three contracts are independent ....