TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has dropped certain demands and confirmed majority of demands. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. The details of confirmed demands are as per the following table : - Statement with details of liability of service tax as calculated by the appellant vis-à-vis the show cause notice dt.13.4.2010 issued to RKEC Projects Pvt Ltd in Appeal No.ST/468/2012 S. No. Year Client Scope of the work executed Period Category of demand ST as per Revenue (Rs) Whether taxable, if not why? (As per the Appellant) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2005- 06 Director General of Naval Projects, Ministry of Defence, GOI Repair of Jetty and renovation of Weapon Repair facility at Naval Dockyard 2005....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;11 Essar & Kakinada Sea Ports Short payments during normal course 2005- 06 to 2008- 09 Short Payments 30,63,237 Demand of Rs.6,36,381/- (6,13,837+22544) up to 1.6.2007 is not payable since it is related to WCS which is not taxable 12 GTA 2006- 07 to 2008- 09 GTA 9,77,011 No evidence that services are from GTA 13 Sub-Total (C) 40,40,248 14 D Cenvat credit on Capital goods 2006- 07 & 2007- 08 Credit on capital goods 20,84,616 Credit is not allowed since the same were received at other places and for provision of exempted service. This is factually not correct. Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been raised for an amount of Rs.30,63,237/-. Out of this, the Appellant has admitted the short payment and paid an amount of Rs.24,26,857/- along with interest of Rs.9,34,164/- before the SCN was issued. He submits that this amount was also appropriated in the OIO. He submits that the balance amount of Rs.6,36,381/- is not payable since the service provided was that of Works Contract service, which was provided prior to 01.06.2007. 4. In respect of S.No.14, he submits that Cenvat Credit of Rs.20,84,616/- was not allowed on the ground that the capital goods in question were received in other places for provision of exempted services. He submits that this is factually not correct. The capital goods in question were being used for provision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that the Appellant has not effectively proved that the services in respect of S.No.1 to 4 would get classified under Works Contract service. Even in respect of S.No.5, 6 & 8, he submits that no proper documentary evidence was placed to the effect that the Appellant was providing Works Contract service. Therefore, he justifies the demands confirmed. In respect of Cenvat Credit denied, he submits that the Appellant has not brought in any proper evidence to the effect that goods in question were being used for providing both taxable and exempted services. He also submits that the CA certificate produced now was not placed before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of denial o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of MMRS, the Appellant has also pleaded that even under this category, they would be eligible for tax exemption if the service is provided to Government. The Adjudicating Authority should give opportunity to the Appellant to make their submissions on this count also. 11. In respect of short payment pointed out to the extent of Rs.30,63,237/-, the Appellant submits that Rs.24,26,857/- along with interest of Rs.9,34,164/- has already been paid by them and appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order. In respect of the balance Rs.6,36,381/-, their pleading towards services being provided under Works Contract service for the period till 31.05.2007 is to be verified by the Adjudicating Authority and if it is....