Mondal Construction Vs Commissioner of Customs Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
The case involves an appeal against an order confirming service tax demand, interest, and penalties for the period 2004–05 to 2008–09. During investigation, the Department observed from Form 26AS that the appellant had received substantial payments from a client for services rendered but had not fully declared the income in ST-3 returns or paid the applicable service tax. Based on scrutiny of financial records and invoices, the Department quantified taxable services across various financial years and issued a show cause notice proposing recovery of service tax along with interest and penalties.
The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 12,26,358 along with interest and imposed penalties. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly granted relief by treating certain road repair and renovation services as exempt, but upheld tax liability on other services such as construction, plumbing, and related works carried out in a township.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that the services provided involved both supply of materials and provision of services, making them composite in nature and classifiable as “works contract services.” It was argued that no demand had been raised under the category of works contract service, and therefore the demand raised under other categories such as construction services, commercial or industrial construction, and erection and commissioning services was not sustainable.
