TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es under the categories of 'commercial or industrial construction service', 'management, maintenance or repair service' and 'works contract service'. 2.1. Upon scrutiny of the Profit & Loss Account and other documents pertaining submitted by the assessee-appellant, it was alleged by the Departmental officers that the appellant had not paid appropriate Service Tax for the services rendered by them for the Financial Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007- 08 and 2008-09. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice bearing C. No. V(15)109/Adj/CE/Bol/10/2292 dated 09.08.2010 was issued, demanding Service Tax of Rs.14,12,07,294/- from the appellant for the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09, along with interest, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The said Notice also proposed imposition of penalties on the appellant under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated vide the Order-in-Original No. 51/Commr/ST/Bol/11 dated 06.07.2011 wherein the ld. adjudicating authority has upheld the demand of Service Tax of Rs.14,12,07,294/-, along with interest and penalties thereon. 3. On appeal, the CESTAT disposed of the appeal vide Final Order No. FO/A/75316/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es submitted by them and confirmed the demands of Service Tax by denying the abatement benefits. Since more than twenty years have passed and they are not in a position to furnish any other documentary evidence in support of their claim for availing the abatement benefits, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that they are taking up the other grounds, on which the demands confirmed in the impugned order are not sustainable. 6.1. The appellant submits that the demands confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable in this case as suppression of facts with intention to evade the tax has not been established in this case. It is their submission in this regard they are registered with the Service Tax Commissionerate and are paying Service Tax regularly; they were also regularly filing Returns during the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09. It is submitted that the appellant had executed several work orders and paid Service Tax thereon after availing abatement in terms of Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. dated 10.09.2004, as amended by Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. dated 01.03.2006.In this regard, the appellant further points out that they have clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended that the demand of Service Tax raised in the impugned Show Cause Notice without quantification of category wise Service Tax liability, is not sustainable in law. 6.3.1. In support of this contention, the appellant has cited the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata v. M/s. Haldia Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No. 76417- 76418 of 2025 dated 05.05.2025 in Service Tax Appeal No. 269 of 2011 &anr. - CESTAT, Kolkata] wherein it has been held that without proper quantification of Service Tax under various headings, confirmation of Service Tax demands is not sustainable. Reliance has also been placed by the appellant on the decision of the CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s. R.K. Singh & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [(2024) 25 Centax 278 (Tri. - Del.)] which has set aside the Show Cause Notice issued merely on the basis of difference observed between the figures furnished in the balance-sheet and S.T.-3 Returns; the Ld. Counsel for the appellant points out that in the said order, the Tribunal has categorically held that a Show Cause Notice must identify the specific taxable service category for demanding Servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts with the intent to evade payment of Service Tax, on the part of the appellant herein. Under such facts and circumstances, we agree with the submission of the appellant that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirming the demand of Service Tax against them. 9.2. We find that a similar view has been expressed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Munna Construction v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Jamshedpur [Final Order No. 77625 of 2024 dated 22.11.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 76359 of 2014 (CESTAT, Kolkata)]. For ease of reference, the relevant observations of the Tribunal in the said case are reproduced below: - "12. Regarding confirmation of the demand of service tax by invoking the extended period of limitation, we observe that the Show Cause Notice has been issued on the basis of the data submitted by the Appellant, i.e., from their balance sheet, Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS.The Appellant submitted that they had obtained registration with the service tax department in the year 2006 and have been filing their Returns. Accordingly, it is their submission that they have not suppressed any information from the Department and thus the extended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant was issued on 26-2-2013. Inasmuch as the entire information was in the knowledge of the Revenue, the longer period of limitation is not available. In view of these facts the show cause notice should have been issued within the normal period of one year as prescribed under section 73(1), whereas the show cause notice for the period April 2008 to March 2009 was issued on 26-2-2013 i.e. after prescribed limit of one year. As per the above fact, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. We also find that it is admitted fact that the appellant have taken service tax registration and are filing the periodical returns regularly. The appellant have maintained proper books of accounts in the normal course of business. It is pertinent to note that the entire case of the department on merit is that since appellant have availed Cenvat Credit, they violated the condition of abatement notification No. 01/2006-ST. As discussed above the facts that availment of Cenvat Credit and payment of Service Tax on the abated value were declared in the ST-3 return. Hence, having all the facts were disclosed to the department, nothing prevented department from issue of show cause notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of such service is received or not. Thus, we find that the whole basis of show cause notice is incorrect and/or misconceived. 13. We further hold that the extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue under the facts and circumstances. We further hold that the appellant is entitled to exemption under the Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. under Sl. No. 13(a) of the said notification for providing consulting engineer services in the matter of road construction. When road construction is exempt, every activity is exempt relating to the road construction including consulting engineer services. The appellant also relied on the ruling in Lord Krishna Real Infra Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, CE & ST, Noida, Final Order No. 70126/2019, dated 27-12-2018. This Tribunal has held in other disputed cases, that even the barricade provided on the side of highway, maintaining greenery on the side or middle of highway, construction of any facility, refreshment centre for road users, is also part of the road construction and such activity is also exempt. Even the administrative building constructed by the concessionaire, for construction of the road or highway for administrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stics Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No. 76417-76418 of 2025 dated 05.05.2025 in Service Tax Appeal No. 269 of 2011 &anr. - CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein it has been observed as under: - "7. In respect of the quantification of amounts realized given under Page 49 of the Appeal Paper, it is seen that there is no Service Tax reference. Coming to the Annexure-III, there is reference of Cargo Handling Service and Storage warehouse service without specific service-wise quantification of Service Tax. On the other hand, we find that the Adjudicating authority in the Discussions and Findings portion of the impugned Order, has bifurcated the demand under four different categories of services and has dealt with the documentary evidence submitted in respect of these services and he has come to a conclusion to drop and confirm the demand under various categories. 8. We find that the Show Cause Notice has been issued in a very casual manner without proper quantification of Service Tax under various headings. This being so, we do not find any error with the Adjudicating Authority who has bifurcated the demand and come to conclusion. We do not find any reason to interfere with the detailed findings of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 66 read with 66A of the Finance Act and the Import Rules are attracted. In fact, neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order specify the category of service under which the demand has been confirmed against the Appellant. The demand has been proposed and confirmed merely because of difference berween the figures in the balance sheet of the Appellant and the ST-3 Returns." [emphasis supplied] 8. After placing reliance upon the decisions of the Tribunal in Shubham Electricals v. Commissioner of Central 2021 (9) TMI 859 CESTAT New Delhi Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak 2015 (40) STR. 1034 (Tri- Del); Deltax Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1 2018-TIOL-636-CESTAT-DEL; and N R Management Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi 2018-TIOL- 813-CESTAT-DEL, the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision observed: 12. It is well settled that the show cause notice as also the order of the adjudicating authority should specify the taxable service. In this connection reference can be made to the following decisions. 13. In Shubham Chemicals, the Tribunal observed as follows: "11. Neither the show cause notice dated 21- 102011 nor the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....state the premises on the basis of which demand have been proposed under 'erection, commissioning and installation service'. Without there being a finding of erection of any such commercial flats/residential complex. The show cause notice is also vague on account of not giving bifurcation of the demand year wise and category wise. I also hold that so far demand of Rs. 15,48,599/- is concerned the same relates to laying of cables or electrical wires including poles for the same alongside or under the road and such work was not taxable to Service Tax in view of Circular dated 24-5-2010 (supra). Similarly, the demand of Rs. 5,88,991/- with respect to work done in the nature of internal and external wiring in the residential houses/duplexes, there is no element of any construction of a commercial/residential complex as defined under the provisions of the Service Tax Act. Accordingly, demand of Rs. 5,88,991/-, is also set aside. So far the disputed amount of Rs. 3,54,411/-, was for work done for Indian Railway Welfare Organization, in view of the fact that the work had been completed before 30-10-2004, there is no question of levy of any tax for the same under ECIS, which have become ta....