2025 (8) TMI 1067

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and of service tax amounting to Rs.86,593/- along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, an equal penalty under Section 78 and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in providing of Construction Services other than residential complex, including Commercial/Industrial Building, Civil Structures which included material and Works Contract Service falling within the Finance Act, 1994. During the course of AG Audit for the period July 2012 to March 2013, it was pointed out that the appellant had availed abatement of 67% of the gross amount as provided in Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 but paid service tax on 33% of the g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3% of the gross amount received as a consideration for the provision of service and was availing abatement of 67% as provided in Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. He further submits that there was a change in the law w.e.f. 01.07.2012 when Notification No. 01/2006- ST was rescinded vide Notification No. 34/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and service tax became payable on 40% of the gross consideration under Rule 2A(A) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. He further submits that this change had not come to the notice of the appellant who continued to pay service tax on 33% of the gross amount. 4.2 He further submits that the entire demand has been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation without prov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s on the department to bring evidences on record to establish suppression on the part of the assessee, which in the present case, the department has failed to do so. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and also refers to one of the ST-3 Returns filed by the appellant stating that in the abatement column of the said Returns, the appellant has mentioned Notification No. 26/2012-ST which shows that the appellant was aware that he was required to pay service tax on 40% of the gross amount. In support of his submission, the learned Authorized Representative relies on the decision of the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cords Cable Industrie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Delhi South vide Final Order No. 51088/2023 dated 21.08.2023 - Tribunal Delhi * Good Year India Ltd & ors vs. CGST, Faridabad vide Final Order No. 60572-60573/2024 dated 04.10.2024 - Tribunal Chandigarh 9. I also find that it has been consistently held by the Tribunal that extended period cannot be invoked when the demand is proposed on the basis of audit as held in the following cases: * Sunshine Steel Industries vs. CGST, Jodhpur vide Final Order No. 51117/2022 dated 15.11.2022 - Tribunal Delhi * Hoshiarpur Automobiles vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana vide Final Order No. 60168-60170/2024 dated 09.04.2024 - Tribunal Chandigarh * Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CST, Delhi vide Final Order No. 60175/2024 dated 16.0....