TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Shivam Syal , Authorised Representatives for the Respondent / Revenue ORDER PER : P. ANJANI KUMAR The appellants, M/s Girdhari Lal Construction Pvt. Ltd., are registered with service tax for rendering taxable services under "Construction of Residential Complex" Service and "Construction of Commercial and Industrial Complex" Service; the appellants are mainly engaged in undertaking civil construction to Government authorities as the contractor/ sub-contractor. On the basis of the audit conducted by CERA, a Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2018 was issued to the appellants proposing to recover service tax of Rs.57,79,40,674/- along with interest and penalties invoking extended period; the Show Cause Notice also proposed to deny credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not submit any data or copies of the Returns to show the actual figures. * CENVAT credit of Rs.38,65,61,280/- cannot be asked to be reversed as the CENVAT credit actually availed by the appellants was only Rs.1,64,45,999/- and that in terms of Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, no reversal of CENVAT credit availed on capital goods is required. 3. Learned Consultant puts forth elaborate submissions and submits written submissions also. He submits that the main issue as to whether AWHO is a public/ Government authority was not clear; whereas Hon'ble Delhi High Court has decided the issue in favour of the appellants in the case of Brij Bhusan Gupta- MANU-DE/0032/1990 but reversed the same in the case of AWHO in LPA No.467/2013; th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Board is not payable as the work was related to construction of houses for weaker sections. The appellant can show the evidence to the Adjudicating Authority in case the matter is remanded back. (v) The appellants have availed very small amount of credit compare to the demand confirmed and for that reason, 06 or 08% of the total value of projects cannot be demanded; the appellants are ready to reverse the entire credit of the duty, along with interest, on the items utilized exclusively for the exempted category, in case the matter is remanded back. 5. Learned Consultant in support of his argument relies on the following cases: * B.L. Mehta Constructions P Ltd. - 2018 (8) GSTL 92 (Tri. Chan.) * Girdhari Lal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellants could not produce any documentary evidence for filing of the Return. (iii) The claim of the appellant regarding the contract with AWHO that the material component is 80% and labour is only 20% is incorrect as in terms of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, there are only two options; the taxable value shall either be less the value of the property in goods transferred or 40% of the gross value; though the appellant claims that they have paid VAT, no documentary co-relation to show that the VAT claimed in respect of the AWHO contracts has been paid. (iv) The appellants could not show any documentary evidence regarding the work provided to Chandigarh Housing Board in respect of houses ....