2025 (4) TMI 1338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assed by the Joint Commissioner and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. We have heard Shri Ajay K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Manoj Kumar, learned authorized representative appearing for the department and perused the records. 3. The appellant is registered with the service tax department under the category of "works contract service" and "construction service other than residential complex service. It has been paying service tax under these heads. In order to carry out its activities it also received services from some other organizations. During the course of audit covering the period July 2012 to December 2013, it was felt that the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 6,85,67,726/- to some sub-contractors ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notice which were, however, confirmed by the Joint Commissioner in his order dated 20.01.2017 which order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant made several submissions on merits as well as on limitation. 6. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order. 7. We find it necessary to first examine the question of limitation because if it is held in favour of the appellant, it will not be necessary for us to examine the merits of the case. 8. The charge of service tax is on the person providing the services as per section 66 of the Finance Act. However, as per section 68(2) of the Finance Act, the Central Government ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the disputed service tax, it could have availed the entire amount of service tax. Therefore, the impact on the appellant is zero. 10. Merely because the appellant could have availed CENVAT credit the liability to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism does not get extinguished. However, as far as the remedy available to the Revenue to recover service tax not paid or short paid under section 73 of the Finance Act is concerned, it has a limitation of time. The normal period of limitation under section 73 was one year from 1994 up to 28.05.2012. From 28.05.2012 up to 14.05.2016, the limitation was 18 months. From 14.05.2016, the limitation was increased to 30 months. The show cause notice was issued on 28.01.2016 and the limitati....