TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.3 of 2026 and this Tribunal in the case of M/s Nirmal Products Ltd. Vs CCE (Tri.-Ahmedabad), I am inclined to allow the restoration application. 1.3 The Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant for restoration of the appeal is allowed. 1.4 Further, with consent of both the sides, I decide to hear the appeal today itself. 1.5 This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.201/ST/APPL/ALLD/2025 dated 15.10.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad. By the impugned order following has been held:- "5.9 I am of the opinion that exemptions are conditional and require strict compliance with the stipulated conditions. The onus is on the assessee to prove eligibility for the exemption through clear, cogent, and admissible documentary evidence. This is in line with general principles of taxation law, where exemptions are construed strictly, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Thus, in the absence of documentary proof and cogent I am unable to extend any relief to the appellant. Accordingly, I conclude that the appellant were rightly held liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 20112/- (Rs. 18777/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is exempt from payment of service tax vide Notification No.12/2012-ST dated 17.03.2012 and they are engaged in providing work contract services in relation to road constriction service, irrigation work for use by the general public, so they were not required for registration under the Service Tax Act. They provided the copies of the documents as asked for. 2.3 On the basis of information provided, after allowing for the abatement as admissible, revenue was of the view that appellant had not paid service tax in respect of these receipts as detailed in table below:- S. No Period Taxable Value Service Tax including cess @% Payable 1 Apr'15 to May'15 13065 12.36 1615 2 01.06.15 to 14.11.15 203081 14.00 28431 3 15.11.15 to 31.03.16 333791 14.50 48400 4 Apr'16 to May'16 0 14.50 0 5 Jun'16 to Mar'17 16082146 15.00 2412324 6 Apr'17 to Jun'17 0 15.00 0 7 Total 16632083 2490770 2.4 It was also noticed that appellant have not paid service tax on reverse charge basis in respect of legal fee paid by them as detailed in table belo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 09.11.2023 set aside the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for fresh decision. 2.8 The matter has been adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.21/AC/ADJ/ST/2024 dated 30.07.2024 wherein following has been held:- "(i) I hereby confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.20,112/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand One Hundred Twelve only) on the taxable amounts received / incurred during FY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June'17) by the party and order to recover the same from them under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017; (ii) I hereby order to recover interest at the appropriate rate on the above confirmed amount of service tax from them under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017; (iii) I hereby impose penalty amounting to Rs.20,112/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand One Hundred Twelve only) upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 for their acts of omission and commission as mentioned in preceding paras; (iv) I hereby also impose penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and confiscatory. 3.3 Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 Impugned order records the findings as follows:- "5.3 After going carefully through the facts of the case on the basis of documents/records available on the case file, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has decided the case after taking into account all the documents submitted by the appellant. As per the impugned order the appellant has submitted the copy of work orders, Form 26AS and other relevant documents. The Adjudicating Authority has extended the benefit of exemption to the appellant on the consideration received by them except on the gross amount of Rs. 312944/- received for construction of Anganwadi Kendra. Also, the Adjudicating Authority held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the expense of Rs. 9000/- incurred towards legal fees. Therefore, I would limit myself only on the issue related to point of appeal. 5.4 In their defence the appellant have submitted that they have pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lishment; or (c) a residential complex predominantly meant for self-use or the use of their employees or other persons specified in the Explanation 1 to clause (44) of section 65 B of the said Act; under a contract which had been entered into prior to the 1st March, 2015 and on which appropriate stamp duty, where applicable, had been paid prior to such date: provided that nothing contained in this entry shall apply on or after the 1st April, 2020;] 5.7 I also note that Rural Engineering Service is not a body corporate as it is not profit oriented and also because it is not registered under Company's Act 1956, hence the provision of reverse charge would not be applicable in this case. Now coming to the issue of cum-tax-benefit, I note that the appellant has not submitted any document which could establish that service tax has not been charged separately. The appellant should have provided the copy of invoices/bills or agreement which could corroborate that the appellant has not charged service tax separately. Thus, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly concluded the service tax liability to the tune of Rs. 18777/- on the gross receipt of R....