TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23.04.2014 covering the period 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. The SCN demanded service tax of Rs. 36,30,35,965/- on seven different grounds and also proposed to impose penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 Finance Act. By the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 91,91,814/- and imposed penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. He dropped the remaining part of the demand. 2. Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Commissioner dropped part of the demand while the assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of demand of Rs. 44,49,868/- on the services which it rendered by preparing and putting up signages at roads and airports. The assessee is not contesting the remaining part of the demand confirmed by the impugned order which pertains to the Cenvat credit, which was irregularly availed by the assessee. 3. The assessee is also contesting the invocation of the extended period of limitation for raising the demand on the ground that none of the five factors essential for invoking extended period of limitation namely fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment on the above counts, which, it appears, renders them liable for appropriate penalty under the provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended". 6. On the same ground, penalty was also proposed to be imposed under section 78. The assessee had contested the invocation of extended period of limitation, before the Commissioner. The Commissioner held in the impugned order that the appellant suppressed facts but did not say that they were suppressed with an intent to evade payment of service tax. He further held "even otherwise, it is possible to invoke extended period in the case of service tax even in situation where there is no intent to evade payment of tax. Even if it is presumed that the noticee has not contravened any provision with intent to evade payment of service tax, yet has failed to comply with the obligations cast upon by the legislature. There is no requirement that there should be suppression with intent to evade. Mere suppression is adequate for the purpose of the recovery of tax for the extended period as well as for imposing penalty". 7. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently opposed the above finding on the ground that it is contrary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material from the gross receipts. Revenue is aggrieved by this dropping of demand. (d) Service tax of Rs. 2,28,73,103/- on the receipts towards works related to signages at roads and airports was partially dropped and partially confirmed to the extent of Rs. 44,49,868/-. Both sides are aggrieved by this decision. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of part of the demand and Revenue is aggrieved by dropping of part of the demand. (e) Demand of service tax of Rs. 32,07,57,568/- on the sales declared in the balance sheet. This demand was dropped by the Commissioner holding that this entire receipt was from sales. Revenue is aggrieved by the dropping of this demand on the ground that the Commissioner accepted the claim of the assessee that these receipts were towards sale of goods without sufficient documentary evidence to support the claim. (f) Recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 47,37,237/-, which was confirmed by the Commissioner and there is no appeal by either side on this issue. Thus, the issue has attained finality. (g) Service tax of Rs. 4,709/- under reverse charge mechanism for legal and professional services confirmed by the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplied under the VCES Scheme. We had asked Revenue to supply copies of the documents related to the VCES Scheme so that this contention could be examined. Learned authorized representative has placed on record a letter dated 06.10.2023 from the Assistant Commissioner confirming that neither the VCES application nor any documents could be found despite sincere and rigorous efforts. In view of this, we are not willing to entertain the Revenue's appeal on this ground because the very basis was that some declaration was made under the VCES which declaration is not available at all. 17. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of this demand to the extent of Rs. 44,49,868/-. According to the assessee the signages were installed by the assessee at roads and, therefore, they should be considered as part of roads. The assessee relies on the definition of road as per OECD in support. According to the assessee, therefore, the signages should be treated as part of road. Consequently, the works contract for installing the signages should be treated works contract for construction of roads which is not exigible to service tax. 18. We find that service tax has to be levied as per the ....