TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... due process, the Adjudicating Authority 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 &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice was not liable to ST during the relevant period w.e.f. 16.5.2008 (SCN- p.27) 9 Sub Total-B 34,04,608 10 A+B 1,29,86,850 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been made under the category of 'Construction of Industrial Complex service' (CICS). He submits that the service is in the nature of Works Contract. The entire demand pertains to the period 2004-05 to 31.05.2007. Hence, no Service Tax is required to be paid. 3. In respect of S.No.11, he submits that on account of certain short payments, demand has 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, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for provision of taxable services. 6. In respect of GTA services, he submits that they have already paid Rs.8,06,767/-. The Appellant is willing to pay interest on this amount and also provide evidence as to why the balance amount is not payable. 7. In view of the above submissions, learned Counsel prays that the Appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned AR 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 just....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....force in the Appellant's argument that no Service Tax was payable for the period till 31.05.2007 as held in catena of decisions. The Adjudicating Authority is required to verify the documentary evidence to the effect that the services would fall under the category of Works Contract service and once he is satisfied, the demands till 31.05.2007 should be dropped. In 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.....