2025 (7) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs.21,63,296/- alongwith interest and imposition of equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(1)(c) of Finance Act, 1994 and penalty of Rs.1000/- for delay in filing of ST-3 returns. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant M/s Ramapati Engineering Services (Proprietor Shri Atul Parashar) took Service Tax Registration No.ADBPP5805ESD001 on 25.6.2015 under the category of 'Work Contract Service' and provided work contract services to Government - Military Engineering Service (Army), Air force (Garrison Engineers) and filed ST-3 returns. In ST-3 return for the period April 2015 to Sept. 2015, claimed SSI exemption of Rs.10 lakhs and thereafter made payment of service ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to show cause as to why demand of service tax Rs.21,63,296/- be not confirmed alongwith interest and penalty under Section 78 & 77(1)(c) of Finance Act 1994. 5. The Appellant filed detailed reply to SCN on merits as well as on limitation and vide Order-in-Original dated 12.4.2022, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand of service tax Rs.21,63,296/- alongwith interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 & penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(1)(c) and also penalty of Rs.1000/-. 6. On appeal, the appeal of the Appellant has been rejected and upheld the Order of Assistant Commissioner by confirming demand of service tax Rs. 21,63,296/-, interest and penalties. 7. Aggrieved with the impugned Order, confirming demand of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on such construction carried-out by the Appellant. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Banna Ram Choudhary Vs CCE, Jaipur reported in 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 338 (Tri. - Del.). 9. The counsel has also submitted that a chart submitted to Commissioner (Appeals) which clearly mentions contract No. & payment made vide various cheques during the F/Y 2015-16, were the work contracts of the year 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, the said chart has been prepared & duly signed by the Executive Engineer (Air force). The Appellant also attached the correspondence with Military Engineer Services (Air force) showing all the work contracts mentioned in the chart duly signed by the Executive Engineer and they were of prior to 1.3.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as rejected vide Order dated 22.5.2017 on the ground of unjust enrichment, therefore the SCN issued on 20.4.2021 is barred by limitation. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal vide Final Order No.50299/2025 dated 11.2.2025 in the case of M/s Vacmet India Limited Vs CCE, Ujjain. 13. Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 15. I find from the records that SCN dated 20.4.2021 has been issued on audit objection invoking extended period wherein the objection is that the Appellant has provided the taxable services to MES Roorkee, Garrison Sarsawa, Garrison Dehradun, MES Roorke....