TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply of tangible goods service" "works contract service" as defined under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. During the period 2010-11 to 2015-16, the appellant was not registered with the service tax department nor did he pay any service tax. Gathering intelligence that the appellant was providing taxable services but not paying service tax, the department sent letters calling for the details from the appellant and also obtained form 26 AS of the appellant issued by the Income Tax Department which revealed that the appellant had collected large sums of money for providing various services from colonizers, developers and builders. The office and residence of the appellant were searched on 25.08.2015. His records were seized and statements of the appellant and his son were recorded. The appellant stated that during the period he had rendered services "site formation" for builders and some work related to the government departments. 4. After scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the appellant was providing the following services; (a) General excavation spreading & leveling, filing and site clearance, (b) Construction of sub base for residential colony, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case in confirming the service tax of Rs. 1,59,88,225/-. (ii) That work executed for construction of Roads, Airports, Railways, Transport Terminals, Bridges, Tunnels, dams, ports or other ports were exempted from service tax. (iii) That the service tax levied at Rs. 1,59,88,225/- is arbitrary and bad in law. (iv) That the direction issued for levy of interest under section 75 is not justified. (v) That the penalty levied at Rs. 1,59,88,225/- under section 78 subject to the provision to reduced the penalty is not justified. (vi) That the entire demand was raised without appreciating the facts, hence the order passed by the adjudicating officer, Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, is not proper. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 10. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: (a) The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner which confirmed service tax of Rs. 1,59,88,225/-. The appellant had already deposited Rs. 1,25,00,000/- through three challans during investigation itself; (b) The receipts of the appellant base....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est under section 75 of the Act. The penalties under section 76 and 77 may be dropped. Submissions of Revenue. 11. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department vehemently supported the impugned order and the order-in-original and reiterated the findings therein and submitted as follows: (a) Of the total amount of Rs. 1.75 crores, the demand of Rs. 1.70 crores was towards site formation and clearance, Excavation & Earthmoving and demolition services". Prior to 01.07.2012, i.e., during the pre- negative regime the benefit of Exemption Notification 17/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005 was available which the adjudicating authority has already reckoned while confirming the demand. Accordingly, he dropped the demand of Rs. 15.54 lakhs. This notification was, however, rescinded by Notification No. 34/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012; (b) For the post negative list period the activities carried out by the appellant with site formation was neither in the negative list under section 66D of the Act nor were they exempted under Mega Exemption Notification 25/2012- ST; (c) The site formation services were not classifiable as works contract service as they did ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the findings of the Additional Commissioner. 15. We have also examined paragraphs 32, 33, 34 of order of the Additional Commissioner and paragraph 7 of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Notification No. 78/2005-ST was available only up to 2012 after which this Notification was rescinded. To the extent the benefit was available the Additional Commissioner dropped the demand to the extent of Rs. 15,54,609/-. In the grounds of appeal before us and also in the synopsis, the appellant has not brought forth specific invoices on which it was entitled to the benefit of this Notification but which was included in the tax calculation made by the Additional Commissioner. We, therefore, find no reason to doubt the findings of the Additional Commissioner and Commissioner (appeals) on this ground. 16. The second contention of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the appellant was liable to pay service tax only on 50% of the amount under works contract services. He observed that in paragraph 38 of the Order-in- Original the Additional Commissioner dealt with this issue and refused to interfere with it. In paragraph 38, the Additional Commissioner examined the appellant....