TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.2012 notifying the nature of services and the person liable to pay service tax. According to Sl. No. 9 of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the service tax in respect of execution of works contract service to the extent of 50% is payable by the service recipient and balance 50% by service provider if, service provider is an individual or partnership firm and the recipient is a body corporate. However, it was observed that for the period from April 2015 to September 2015, the appellant has filed Nil service tax return and after that, the appellant has not filed ST-3 returns for the period October 2015 to June 2017. Accordingly, it was alleged that the appellant has not paid/short paid service tax amounting to Rs. 4,16,572/- (in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that due to said confusion the appellant was not aware about the tax liability. The department has, therefore, wrongly alleged the suppression of facts. The show cause notice since has invoked extended period of limitation is alleged to be barred by time for the simple reason that the appellant had no intention to evade payment of tax. 3.1 It is being repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that something positive other than mere inaction on the part of the manufacturer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise is required for covering extended period. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemicals Vs. [1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC)], CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Laminat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned counsel has prayed for show cause notice to be held barred by time and for the impugned demand to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed 4. While rebutting these submissions, learned DR submitted that the period in dispute is 2015-16 to 2017-18. The decision of Hon'ble apex court in L&T (supra) decision was of the year 2015. Hence the entire plea taken by appellant about the prevalent confusion with respect to tax liability on WCS/composite contracts, is not applicable to the given facts. The works contract provided by the appellant otherwise does not include the materials supplied by RVPNL. Hence no question arises for deduction of material used in the works contract services. The works which were performed with the material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nature of works contract services and after meticulously examining all the work order, the original adjudicating authority has held as follows: "24 Accordingly to above re-calculation, I find that demand of duty during the period 2015-16 to 2017-18 (upto June 2017) is Rs. (22570+48891+74569+35965)= 181995/- payable by the assesee instead of Rs. 416572/- and I dropped the demand of Rs. 234577/- reasons for various benefit/exemption as discussed above under work contract services viz. (Notification No. 24/2012-ST dated 06.06.2012 and Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 etc.). I further observed from the Work Orders during the above periods which shows that the assessee provided the labour oriented work in which material supp....