AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the officers of the Department wherein it was noticed that the Appellant was not regular in payment of service tax and filing of service tax returns. Accordingly, the case of the Appellant was transferred to the Preventive Department, Surat-I Commissionerate. The preventive officers have conducted a search on 10.04.2013 at the premises of the Appellant and records and documents required for further investigation were seized. On detailed scrutiny of the seized documents, the Department noticed that the Appellant had not discharged its entire service tax dues during the period of 2008-09 to 2012-13. 1.2 The Department conducted an extended investigation and called for records from major customers of the Appellant and had also asked them to provide the details of payment made to the Appellant. The investigation was culminated into issuance of the Show Cause Notice bearing No. 12/01/13-14 dated 11.10.2013 wherein vide Annexures C&D, the Department computed service tax liability of the Appellant in relation to the contract income and hire income, respectively as shown by the Appellant in its balance sheet. The aforesaid Annexures highlight what services were provided by the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod of limitation cannot be justified. In the present case, the Appellant had not committed any positive act to suppress information from the Department with the intention to evade payment of service tax. The Appellant submits that even if it is presumed that some of the details were not reported in ST-3 returns as alleged in the show cause notice and order-in-original, just omission of such reporting would not amount to suppression, fraud, willful misstatement etc. For invocation of extended period, mere omission or non-disclosure would not be sufficient. There should be any positive action which suggest that there is any fraud, collusion, suppression, willful misstatement etc., with an intent to evade the payment of taxes. The show cause notice and order in original failed to prove any such action on the part of the appellant which suggest fraud, collusion, suppression, willful misstatement etc. with an intent to evade the payment of taxes. He further placed reliance on the following judgments: Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-1 M/s Ceeyes Metal Reclamation P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GS & Central Excise, Coimbatore, Final O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition to one shown in Annexure-C & D and how it has been classified under a particular category even though this issue was brought to the notice of adjudicating authority. Here Appellant would also like to submit that unless and until it is not clearly specified and provided that how and why a particular activity carried out by the assessee falls under a specified taxable category as defined under Sec. 65 (105), said assessee cannot be fastened upon by any liability to pay service tax under Sec. 66 & 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with relevant other provisions of Finance Act, 1994. Thus, it is submitted that the subject demand has been demanded in the Show Cause Notice without clearly specifying and/or categorising, entire demand and in some places it has classified a single activity differently, it is contradictory to each other and hence, entire demand is not sustainable on this ground and the same is therefore, liable to be dropped. 2.4 He submits that a sub-contractor is not liable to pay service tax; it is the main contractor that is liable to pay service tax, if any applicable or payable. In this regard, it is submitted that in the present case, the majority of demand h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Learned Commissioner to provide it with an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned officers of its clients in order to prove their case However, the Appellant was denied such opportunity which was very crucial because the demand was quantified on the basis of such details. He had also submitted a certificate from DDIL requesting the Learned Commissioner to exclude to amounts received by it as sub-contractor and had also produced invoices with respect to partial reverse charge mechanism as applicable w.c.f. 01.07.2012. However, the Learned Commissioner did not consider the request and the invoices submitted by the Appellant. The denial of cross-examination to the Appellant is against the principles of natural justice and equity. Hence, no demand can be sustained on this ground. 3. Shri Rajesh Nathan Learned Assistant (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that appellant in the grounds of appeal has made detailed submission as stated from Para 2 to 2.6 from which it is observed that appellant have raised serious objections poi....