CGST, CE & CC, Bhopal Versus M/s Manokamma Electrification Co.
Service Tax
2018 (3) TMI 1247 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT, NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 9-2-2018
Service Tax Appeal No. 57713 of 2013 – Final Order No. 50626/2018
Service Tax
Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Shri A.K. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the appellant.
Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, Advocate – for the Respondent.
Per. B. Ravichandran :-
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 27/02/2013 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. By the impugned order, the Commissioner dropped the demand against the respondent for the period upto 15/06/2005. He also held that the proc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to include immovable property also. Considering the facts of the case, intimation by the respondent and various correspondence thereafter the impugned order held that no allegation of suppression, willful mis-statement cannot be sustained against the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.
2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal record. The grievance of the Revenue is that there is a case for suppression of material facts on the part of the respondent and impugned order should not have dropped the proceedings on limitation. It was submitted that the respondent did not provide all the details and later took the plea of bonafide understanding of the legal provision. The R
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ote that the enquiry against the respondent started on 29/09/2004 by summon proceedings. The respondent obtained registration for service tax on 02/11/2004. The enquiry and verification continued for many years thereafter. Show cause notice was issued demanding service tax under management, maintenance or repair service. The impugned order held that seeing the accounts maintained and the nature of contracts and the correspondent with the Revenue by the respondent, there is no scope for invoking extended period. We also note that many of the buildings and properties maintained by the respondent are Government buildings. Section 98 of the Finance Act, 2012 brought in a special provision for exemption in cases where management, maintenance or
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =