TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed the demand of Rs 12,41,34,390/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Forty-One Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Three Hundred & Ninety Only) being the service tax short paid on the Maintenance & Repair Services provided by the appellant during the relevant period, under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act ibid along with applicable interest and an equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid; c) confirmed the demand of Rs 15,46,134/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand One Hundred & Thirty Four Only) being the service tax short paid under RCM on the Royalty Payments made by the appellant during the relevant period under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act ibid along with applicable interest and an equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid and d) confirmed the demand of Rs 8,31,03,736/- (Rupees Eight Crores Thirty One Lakhs Three Thousand Seven Hundred & Thirty Six Only) being the service tax short paid on Erection & Commissioning Services provided by the appellant during the relevant period under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act ibid along with applicable interest and an equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid. 2. Brief facts, as gleaned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appearing for the appellant argued and provided the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant in the synopsis dated 28-06-2024, inter-alia, as under:- A. During EA-2000 audit, Appellant had furnished all the required details and had explained the nature of services. It was also explained that in the ST-3 returns for the current audit period, the appellant declared only the abated value of 70% under maintenance and repair services and also failed to declare the value of certain exempted services viz. supplies to railways and metro railways [Sl. No:13(a) and 14(a) of notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012]. Similarly, the appellant had declared only the value of service portion in the ST-3 returns under "Erection and Commissioning Services" and also failed to furnish the value of certain exempted services viz. supplies to railways and metro railways [Sl.No:13(a) and 14(a) of notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012]. Appellant had also explained that for the purpose of revenue recognition in the trial balance and profit and loss account, the appellant is following percentage of completion method as prescribed in ICDS IV [Income Computation and Disclosure Standard] issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are following Rules 3 and 4 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. (iii) The liability to pay service tax on reverse charge mechanism on royalty payments does not arise as per Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. But, GST liability arises as per Section 13(3) of CGST Act, 2017 and they have already paid the IGST of Rs.18,55,360/- in Feb, 2021. E. Pre SCN-consultation hearing was held on 25.8.2021. Commissioner has ordered for detailed verification by Director (Cost) relating to maintenance and repair services and erection and commissioning services. He directed to forward all the details to Director (Cost) and to get his comments at the earliest. Commissioner has also stated that the issue will be finalized after taking into consideration the viewpoints of Director (Cost). In respect of other two issues, Commissioner directed to furnish further details. F. Appellant also submitted all the details to the Director (Cost) and also to the Audit on various occasions including the Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 27.9.2021 to justify the abatements, and exemptions and to establish that there is no liability on account of differential value between trial ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 [Sl.No:13a and 14a], which is contrary to the facts of EA-2000 audit [Paras 3 and 4 of SCN]. As per EA-2000 Audit, where no objection was raised on the abatement of 30% for maintenance and repair works contract services and also the exemption for the supplies to railways and metro railways. It is an admitted fact. When the entire proceedings are initiated based on the EA-2000 objections, the subsequent proceedings should stick to the jurisdiction of such objections and should not travel beyond that. Further, supportive documents/Chartered Accountant Certificate was also furnished to the EA-2000 Audit to justify the abatement and exemption, which were not considered. It is also pertinent to mention here that railway stations and metro stations are transport terminals and services relating to transport terminals are exempted unconditionally under notification 25/2012-ST [Sl.No:13(a)]. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd Vs CST - 2015 (37) STR 850. (b) Issues were finalized without the opinion of Director (Cost), which is contrary to the decision of the Commissioner, Audit, which was taken on 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey have now the requisite evidences that they intend to rely on and therefore the opportunity sought by way of remand may be allowed without disturbing the benefits that have been allowed in the impugned order in original. Special Counsel, did not have any objections to the matter being remanded. 12. Heard the rival submissions on length, perused the appeal records and the citations submitted as relied upon. 13. At the outset, we notice that the Adjudicating Authority has granted certain benefit in so far as the proposal for reversal of amount under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the SCN was concerned, in that, out of the total demand of Rs.12,98,61,672/-, an amount of Rs.30,04,135/- alone was confirmed in respect of income from renting of residential property, sale of assets, High Sea Sales and component sales and the balance demand pertaining to profit from partnership concern, comprehensive income and works contract stands dropped. Revenue has not filed any cross-objections in this matter and thus has not contested the demand to the extent it has been dropped. 14. Considering the fact that the request of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is primarily tha....