M/s. Raj Kishor Constructions Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai South
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 1183 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 17-12-2018
ST/Misc. /41704/2017 and ST/639/2011 – Final Order No. 43140/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri M.A. Mudimannan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellant is a proprietary concern engaged in providing site formation services which are in the nature of leveling the ground and excavation of earth with the help of excavators etc. They were registered with the service tax department. During the course of audit of accounts, it was noticed that they had not paid service tax on services rendered as sub-contractor during the period from 16.6.2005 to December 2008 under “Site Formation and Clearance Services”. It was also noticed that they h
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e appellant. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M.A. Mudimannan submitted that the site formation services were rendered by the appellant as a sub-contractor and since the main contractor has discharged the service tax on the very same activities (contracts), the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under this category. With regard to the wrong availment of 67% abatement as per Notification No.15/2004 (1/2006), the ld. counsel fairly conceded that the activity does not fall under works contract service and the appellant on the wrong belief that site formation services are in the nature of works contract service and is eligible for abatement had availed the same. It is argued by him, in any case, that the appellant had rendered the services in respect of SEZ development activities and therefore the demand cannot sustain. It is also argued by him that the appellant had disclosed the abatement availed b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
able to clarify these if given a chance by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority.
3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in the impugned order. Countering the argument of the ld. counsel for the appellant regarding the discharge of service tax liability by the main contractor, it is submitted by the ld. AR that the appellant has not produced any proof that the main contractor has discharged the service tax. Regarding the availment of abatement, he submitted that the appellants have deliberately availed the abatement to which they are not entitled and therefore it is a clear violation of provisions of law. The contention of the appellant that they have rendered the construction of road work within the SEZ was not raised by them before the adjudicating authority and therefore such a contention cannot be accepted at this stage. In any case, the said plea has to be verified by the adjudicating authority.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The period of dispute
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =