The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), refused to interfere with invoking extended period of limitation and imposed penalty as there was suppression in the value of services.
The appellant, M/s Baba Ram Dev Construction & Engineer, was engaged in providing various services which fell under the categories of construction of complex services, management, maintenance and repair services, etc. A show cause was issued to the appellant covering the period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 demanding duty.
On appeal, by the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand on “construction of complex services” and upheld the remaining part of the demand and also held that the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994shall be correspondingly modified.
The counsel for the appellant also assailed the invocation of extended period of limitation and, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant had contested the demand relying on the provisions of section 98 of the Act which exempted non-commercial Government buildings during the period on and from 16 day of June, 2005 till 28 May, 2012.
The Commissioner (Appeals), however, found that the appellant’s services were not covered by this section as the appellant had not managed or maintained or repair any non-commercial Government buildings, but had maintained pipelines as admitted by the appellant itself.
The Coram comprising Justice Dilip Gupta, President and PV Subba Rao, Technical Member observed that “We fully agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals). We find that there is no case for the appellant to claim an exemption from payment of service tax under management, maintenance and repair services. Undisputedly, the appellant had not maintained any non-commercial buildings of the Government, but had maintained pipelines which were not exempted under any notification or provision or circular presented before us.”
“For these reasons, we find that the extended period of limitation has also been correctly invoked. As far as the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are concerned, they have already been reduced proportionately by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order” the Tribunal opined.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
