The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the demand for service tax by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of Limitation.
Nirmal Engineers & Contractors, the appellant assessee was a sub-contractor, was providing civil construction services to M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for confirmed the demand for service tax under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act.
A.K. Batra and Akashdeep, the counsel for the assessee contended that the department while proposing the service tax demand failed to specify the taxable category of services provided by the appellant under section 65(105) of the Finance Act.
Further submitted that an extended period of limitation could not have been invoked by the revenue department while deciding a case.
It was also contended that not only had the demand been confirmed for a period beyond 5 years but even otherwise the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Rajeev Kapoor, the counsel for the revenue department contended that the assessee had rendered various construction activities which would be classifiable as commercial or industrial construction and works contract services.
The bench observed that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case, but it would not be necessary to decide this issue as the demand itself.
The two-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya(Technical) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
