M\/s Hindupur Bio-Energy Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad \u2013 GST
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 661 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 9-10-2018
ST\/30605\/2018 – A\/31293\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR)
\nORDER
\nPER: P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO
\nThe appellant herein is a supplier of Ready Mix Cement (RMC) and is providing site formation and clearance, excavation, earth moving and demolition services. On investigation, authorities found that they have short paid the service tax on services and they have also not paid service tax on advances received from their customers. The appellant had subsequently discharged the service tax liability on the advances received by them in two instalments. It appeared that there was a delay in paying service tax. Accordingly, the Original Authority after issue <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e elements have not been proved and therefore, demand of payment of interest on service tax is time barred. He relied on the circular of CBEC No. 1053\/2\/2017-CX, dated 10.03.2017 in which it has been, inter alia “Applicability of limitation in demanding interest: In cases where duty and interest is demanded, it is quite clear that limitation prescribed in Section 11A applies. However, it may be noted that in cases where the duty has been paid belatedly and interest has not been paid, interest needs to be demanded and recovered following the due process of demand and adjudication. In such cases, the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 11A applies for demand of interest. Section 11A(15) may be referred in this regard”. On a specific query from the bench, he confirmed that the circular by the CBEC was issued in the context of Section 11A (15) which reads as follows “the provisions of subsections 1 1A(4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the recovery of the interest whether interes<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n athialagan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry [2018-TIOL-1509-CESTAT-MAD] = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Hindupur Bio-Energy Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad \u2013 GSTService Tax2018 (10) TMI 661 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 9-10-2018ST\/30605\/2018 – A\/31293\/2018Service TaxMr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) ORDER PER: … Continue reading “M\/s Hindupur Bio-Energy Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad \u2013 GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14443","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14443\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nEven on merits, the appellants argued that the activities which they have under taken were in relation to their supplies of ready mix concrete and hence they are not liable to payable service tax.
\n3. Learned Departmental Representative argues that on merits the appellant had not taken this stand of non taxability before the lower authority and hence cannot take this stand now. He further argued that the activities undertaken by the appellants are taxable as it includes not only pumping of RMC but also survey and other activities related to the site formation. Hence they are liable to pay service tax. At any rate, the service tax has already been paid and the only point of dispute left is the question of interest. He asserts that the demand of interest is sustainable and the appellant's plea of time bar does not hold as there is no time limit for demand of interest on service tax. The circular issued<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n