TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the appeal of the appellant and partly confirmed the order in original dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner. 2. The appellant was registered with the service tax department and were providing site formation & clearance excavation & earth moving demolition services as defined under section 65(97a) of the Finance Act, 1994 [Act] 3. The anti-evasion wing of the Commissionerate initiated an investigation and obtained details of amounts received by the appellant as per its P & L accounts and as shown in Form 26 AS generated by the Income Tax Department and compared them with the amounts shown as received in the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant. It was felt that the appellant had short paid service tax amounting to Rs.1,53....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis of cum tax gross amounts. C. There is nothing on record that from the point of view of the service recipients; the services have been treated by the department as taxable, under reverse charge mechanism. D. Completely ignoring the background of the present proceedings and as if shutting eyes to the facts so obvious on record i.e. agreements etc, the learned adjudicating officer has confirmed the demand on higher of the figures appeared in Form 26 AS and P& L Account. E. There is no ground and there is no justification for imposition of any penalty under section 77(1)(a) and 77 (1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the appellant firm. F. There is no ground and there is no justification for imposition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had rendered services as a sub- contractor and, therefore, services were exempted by Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012(Sr No. 12d). 9. Learned authorized representative for the Revenue, however, supported the impugned order and asserted that that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of this Notification. We find that (Sr No. 12d) of the Notification exempts "services provided to the Government or a local authority or a Government authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alternation of canal or dams or other irrigation works." 10. We note that the appellant has admittedly not rendered the services directly to the government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, for the service provided or to be provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be such amount, is with the addition of tax benefit is equal to the gross amount charge." 12. We do find that the impugned order has denied the cum-tax benefit to the appellant. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of section 67(2) of calculation of tax treating the receipts as cum-tax receipts. 13. The appellant's third contention (ground C) is that "nothing on record to show that the services rendered by the appellant have been treated as taxable under the reverse charge mechanism". We find that all services are not taxable under the reverse charge mechanism and only some services are chargeable under rever....