TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent case are as under: 2.1 The appellants are engaged in construction of Tunnel which is a taxable service under 'Works Contract Service' as declared under Section 66E(h) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. The appellants have provided the services to M/s Patel India Ltd - M/s Gammon India, Joint Venture Entity, for construction of Rampur Hydro Power Project on subcontract basis for the period 2013-14. As per the department, the services provided by the appellants were taxable under Works Contract Services. The appellants had received an amount of Rs.57,42,62,289/- during the period 2013-14 for Tunnel and Road construction work on which service tax amounting to Rs.2,83,91,528/- was payable by the appellants. 2.2 The appellants had already been issued SCN dated 15.06.2012 and Statement under Section 73(1A) dated 16.07.2013 for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2013, which were adjudicated vide Orderin- Original No. CHD-CEX-CHD-001-COM-47-48-2014 dated 18.06.2014. The demand in the present case pertains to subsequent period i.e. from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 and is on the same grounds as discussed in earlier SCN. The grounds for issuance of the present demand were not repeated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r development of Rampur Hydro Power Project; M/s Patel-Gammon Joint Venture further awarded certain orders relating to their main contract of construction of Tunnels to the appellants. 2.8 On 14.02.2024, the learned Principal Commissioner passed the impugned order confirming the demand along with interest and penalties. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order which emanated from the Statement dated 20.04.2015 issued to the appellants under Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. 4.1 The learned Counsel further submits that the Statement dated 20.04.2015 ('deemed SCN') issued under Section 73(1A) is neither a valid SCN nor a valid Statement under Section 73(1A) and thus void ab initio in as much as it neither fulfills the mandatory ingredients of SCN nor of the Statement under Section 73(1A); moreover, the alleged deemed SCN dated 20.04.2015 is vague and cryptic. 4.2 He further submits that the impugned order is beyond the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers from material irregularity in law and hence is not sustainable being contrary to the provisions of Section 73(1A). In support of this submission, he relies on the following decisions: Dharambir Singh & Co. vs. CCE, Noida - 2018 (8) GSTL 440 (Tri. All.) Shubham Electricals vs. CCE, Rohtak - 2015 (40) STR 1034 (Tri. Del.) / CCE vs. Shubham Electricals - 2016 (42) STR J- 312 (Delhi) R. Ramdas vs. CCE, Puducherry - 2021 (44) GSTL 258 (Mad.) CCE, Bangalore vs. Brindavan Beverages Pvt Ltd & ors - Supreme Court Order dated 15.06.2007 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3417-3425 of 2002 and 4398 of 2003 Aditya Medisales Ltd vs. Stae of Jharkhand - (2023) 12 Centax 162 (Jhar.) 4.8 The learned Counsel further submits that the demand has been confirmed under works contract service without issuing/serving proper and valid SCN. 4.9 He further submits that the adjudicating authority though has discussed in detail the provisions of Mega Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 (applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2012) and Sr.No. 13, knowing very well that no such thing has even been mentioned in the alleged Statement/deemed SCN dated 20.04.2015. 4.10 The learned Counsel further submits that for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal bearing no. ST/55329/2014 by the department. We also find that this Tribunal, vide Final Order dated 26.10.2018, allowed the appeal of the assessees/appellants and dismissed the appeal of the department. We also find that againt the Tribunal's order dated 26.10.2018, the department filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 28.08.2023 dismissed the appeal of the department on limitation. We also find that when the earlier appeals were pending before the Tribunal, the another Statement dated 20.04.2015 under Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act was issued, on the basis of which, the impugned order has been passed confirming the demand along with interest and imposing the penalties. 7. Further, we find that once the earlier SCN dated 15.06.2012 has attained finality then the present deemed SCN dated 20.04.2015 under Section 73(1A) being issued on the same grounds as stated in the earlier SCN, should have been dropped by following the judicial discipline by the adjudicating authority. 8. We also find that as per the requirement of Section 73(1A), the demand can only be raised on the same grounds, whereas in the present case, ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble High Court, after referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on judicial discipline, has held as under: "18. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the observations made by the Tribunal with regard to "judicial discipline". In the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Shivananda Pathak & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 513 (Para-28), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a judgment is overruled by the Higher Court, the judicial discipline requires that the Judge whose judgment is over-ruled must submit to that judgment. He cannot, in the same proceedings or in collateral proceedings between the same parties, rewrite the overruled judgment. 19. In the case of Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association v. Bihar Education Service Association and others, (2012) 13 SCC 33 (Para-43), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the judgment of a Court is confirmed by the Higher Court, the judicial discipline requires that Court to accept that judgment, and it should not in collateral proceedings write a judgment contrary to the confirmed judgment. 20. In the case of Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2013) 2 SCC 398 (Para....