TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....08.2013 for the period 200809 to 2012-13, an investigation was conducted. Pursuant thereto two show cause notices were served upon the appellant. Period SCN OIO OIA 2012-13 to 2014- 15 Show Cause Notice No. 15/2017-18 dated 17-Oct2017 proposing recovery of service tax of Rs.1,69,33,882/- Order-in-Original No. 06/2018-19 dated 31.08.2018 confirming demand for an amount of Rs.1,18,40,788/- Order-in- Appeal No. 435-436-18- 19 dated 29.03.2019 confirming demand of an amount of Rs.1,32,714/- Rest has been dropped 2015-16 Show Cause Notice No. 15-41 /18-19/434 dated 20.04.2018 Proposing recovery of service tax of Rs. 21,83,315/- Order in Original No. 09/2018-19 dated 06.11.2018 Confirming demand for an amount of Rs. 1,47,462/- 1.2 The proposal of both the show cause notices has been confirmed vide Order-in-Original, as already mentioned above. Appeal against the said order has been disposed of vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, where demand to the extent of service tax amounting to Rs.1,32,714/- vis-à-vis construction of private road has been confirmed and rest of the Order-in-Original has been set aside. Being aggrieved of the said order, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no ground mentioned in the review order as have been reiterated by learned Departmental Representative. Para 2 of the order talks about the grounds as specified in the appeal in Form ST-5 enclosed. Learned counsel impressed upon that perusal of this paragraph make it clear that the present ST-5 Form was prepared even prior the passing of the review order. Learned counsel has also brought to notice the date of verification of the present appeal/ST-5 Form which is 16.07.2019 as a corroboration to the above alleged illegality in the review order. The maintainability of the present appeal is thus objected being filed without proper authorization. 4.1 While submitting on merits, it is mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 8.5 categorically held that there is no finding recorded which could prove that the roads constructed by the respondent were private roads. It has been held that the benefit of exemption of mega exemption notification was available to the respondent. Based on this ground only, the major portion of demand of service tax amounting to Rs.1,14,06,002/- has been set aside. Impressing upon no infirmity in the said order and that no evidence has been produced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce, it is as good as the public road. Since the road is not within the residential complex that the benefit of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 is available to the respondent. We have perused the said notification and the relevant Entry No. 13(a) which reads as follows The Sl. No. 13 (a) of the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 reads as below- "13. Services provided by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of,-(a) a road, bridge, tunnel, or terminal for road transportation for use by general public; The word "general public" is also defined at Sl. No. 2(q) in the same notification, which reads as- "general public" means the body of people at large sufficiently defined by some common quality of pubic or impersonal nature." 5.3 Perusal thereof reveals that the activity of constructing roads meant for general public is exempted from payment of tax. At this stage, we have also perused the definition of residential complex as defined under Section 65(91)(a). It reads as follows: (Act page 19 Para e) 91(a) "re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under section 85, direct any Central Excise Officer to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal against the order: Provided that where the Committee of Commissioners differs in its opinion against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), it shall state the point or points on which it differs and make a reference to the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner who shall, after considering the facts of the order, if is of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "jurisdictional Chief Commissioner" means the Chief Commissioner having jurisdiction over the concerned adjudicating authority in the matter." 5.6 It is perused that the word used in the provision is 'shall'. Hence, it is mandatory for the committee of commissioners as mentioned in the said provision to state the points on which it differs from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and should make a reference to the Jurisdictional Chie....