Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (3) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n service" (CICS), "Works Contract service" (WCS) & "Site Formation and Clearance service". The Appellants as a works contractor was engaged in laying of optical fiber cables and gas pipe lines for GAIL, construction of reservoirs etc., as main contractor and also as a subcontractor. This is the second round of litigation. 2. In the first round of Appeal, the matter came up before the Tribunal, in cross appeals, remanded the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for the denovo proceedings, as the Original Authority had dropped certain parts of demand and also confirmed certain portions of demand. 3. The Brief facts are that the Appellant is a works contractor and mainly engages in laying of optical fibre lines, gas pipeli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f) Further returns were filed belatedly and as it did not contain all the details, extended period is invokable. 5. They are mainly relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd [2015 (39) STR 913 (SC)], in support that demand will not sustain prior to 01.06.2007. Similarly, for the optical fiber cables laying under CICS up to 01.06.2007, and thereafter under Works Contract. In view of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dt.24.05.2010, the same is not liable to service tax and the matter is no longer res integra in view of the judgment in the case of HM Satyanarayan vs CCE, Nagpur [2016 (42) STR 397 (Tri-Mumbai) and CCE, Jaipur-II vs Rishab Telelinks [2017 (49) STR 71 (Tri-Delhi)]. They have also submitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the ground that they were under bonafide belief, that there was no liability to pay service tax on laying of gas pipe lines for GAIL and that they have been paying service tax and filing returns. 9. For the sake of clarity, the demand of duty has been made in respect of following services: a) Laying of pipelines under WCS/CICS - Rs.1,41,82,336/- b) Construction of reservoirs, CNG stations and fire stations etc. - Rs.11,66,538/- c) Demand under Business Auxiliary service - Rs.96,458/- (not disputed) d) Site preparation service - Rs.66,327/- (not disputed) e) Laying of Optical Fiber Cables - Rs.4,39,514/- (not disputed) 10. The learned AR for revenue relies on the impugned order. 11. Ha....