TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- (including Cess) under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and ordered for appropriation of the amount of Rs. 3,57,22,070/- (including Edu. Cess and SHE Cess) already paid by the Assessee towards the service tax demand confirmed as above, and further ordered for balance amounts, if any, to be paid by the Assessee; (b) Confirmed payment of interest at the applicable rate on the balance amounts of the confirmed demand under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and ordered for appropriation of the amount of Rs. 1,49,63,475/- (on differential service tax and reversal of Cenvat credit) already paid by the Assessee towards the interest payable; (c) Ordered for reversal of Cenvat credit availed by the Assessee in terms of Notification No. 1/2006-ST and ordered for appropriation of the amount of Rs. 74,19,404/- already reversed by the Assessee towards the said reversal. Also ordered for recovery of interest on the said reversal of Cenvat credit and appropriation of the amount of Rs. 1,49,63,475/- (on differential service tax and reversal of Cenvat credit) already paid by the Assessee in cash towards the interest payable; (d) I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... w.e.f. 01.06.2007. 2.3 The Department entertained a view that the Assessee was not entitled to avail the benefit of the Composition Scheme for such ongoing projects. Consequently, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 18.10.2012 proposing to disallow the benefit of the new scheme of valuation for the on-going projects and raised a demand for differential service tax alleging short payment of tax. 2.4 During the FY 2011-12, the Assessee was also engaged in the construction of projects which were initiated on or after 01.06.2007, and all such projects were termed as 'new projects'. During adjudication before the learned Commissioner, the Assessee provided details of turnover/billing with respect to both on-going projects and new projects, along with the details of service tax paid thereon. 2.5 On the basis of the details provided by the Assessee, the Department re-computed the tax liability for the on-going projects. Based on the information supported by a Chartered Accountant (CA) certificate, the Department calculated the differential amount of service tax to the tune of Rs. 3,57,22,070/-, which the Assessee paid along with applicable interest on or arou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appropriated in the impugned order, no penalty should have been imposed on the Assessee. 4.2 He further submitted that the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, which statutorily provides for the waiver of penalties under Sections 76 and 77 if the Assessee proves that there was a 'reasonable cause' for the said failure. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bajaj Travels Limited vs. Commissioner [2012 (25) S.T.R. 417 (Del.)], wherein the Hon'ble High Court explained the concept of 'reasonable cause' under Section 80 of the Act and held as under: "Before we advert to this issue, it is necessary to understand the meaning which is to be assigned to expression "reasonable cause". It would mean, in common parlance a cause or ground which was not unreasonable. To put it otherwise, in the context of this case the appellant has to show that there was sufficient and proper reasons which occasioned the appellant to make short deposits of service tax than required under the provisions of the Act. If the appellant can show that the manner in which he was making ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... did not file the statutory ST-3 returns within the prescribed time. It was only after an inquiry initiated by the Department that the necessary details were supplied by the Assessee, based on which the present proceedings were started. He further submitted that there was no reasonable cause for the nonpayment of service tax by the Assessee. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the case laws relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Assessee. 6.1 We find it to be an admitted fact that during the FY 2011-12, there were certain projects under construction for which service tax was being paid, where the construction had commenced prior to 01.06.2007 and was on-going. We further note that w.e.f. 01.06.2007, the Composition Scheme came into being, and the Assessee availed of the said scheme in respect of those projects where construction had commenced prior to 01.06.2007. 6.2 The Department was of the view that the Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the Composition Scheme for such on-going projects. Thereafter, information was sought from the Assessee, and the tax liability was re-comput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal dated 26.06.2014. 10. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue Appellant submitted that, as per the grounds of appeal, the learned Commissioner (Adjudicating Authority) in the impugned order solely relied upon the computations and details provided by the Assessee Respondent during the adjudication proceedings to determine the short-paid service tax, which was merely supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate. 10.1 He further submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in not examining an income of Rs. 43,39,90,174/- for its taxability under the Service Tax laws. The only claim made by the Assessee via the CA certificate dated 14.01.2014 was that this amount represented income from activities other than construction activity, forming part of the total turnover reflected in the balance sheet. He contended that the learned Adjudicating Authority failed to properly examine the details project-wise and overlooked discrepancies in the service tax rates applied to different 'new projects'. Furthermore, he argued that no steps were taken to cross-examine or verify the veracity of the data with the concerned Division or Investigation Agency. Such veri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Commissioner has categorically observed: "I have carefully gone through the facts, merits and circumstances of the case on record". Therefore, the allegation of the Revenue that the learned Commissioner did not examine the record has absolutely no basis. 11.5 As regards the ground raised in Para 4.3 of the grounds of appeal, wherein the Revenue raised a plea that the Assessee-Respondent had short-paid service tax of Rs. 30,25,791/- by contending that the Assessee-Respondent had shown a payment of Rs. 26,21,04,795/- in its CA certificate dated 14.01.2014 whereas the ST-3 returns reflected a payment of Rs. 25,90,79,004/-, he submitted that this difference of Rs. 30,25,791/- is due to the reversal of Cenvat credit on the clearance of capital goods upon being sold, which was duly declared in the ST-3 returns. He further submitted that this ground has also been fully examined by the learned Commissioner in Para 7.7 of the impugned order. 12. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the primary grounds raised by the Revenue in their appeal are that the learned Commissioner (Adjudicating Authority) ....