Case Law Details
Vrindavan Construction Vs Commissioner (Appeals) (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that exemption under notification 25/2012-ST available as activities undertaken is covered within the ambit of works assigned under Article 243W of the Constitution to be carried out by the Municipalities. Further, mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts and accordingly extended period cannot be invoked.
Facts- M/s. Vrindavan Construction(The Appellant), has provided Works Contract Service to M/s Bharti Infratel Ltd and M/s. Lamco Industries (P) Ltd and also to Government of Bihar vide M/s South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. (SBPDC) during the period 2013-14 to 2016-17. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), has confirmed the demand on the work undertaken by the appellant for SBPDCL on the ground that SBPDCL doesn’t qualify the definition of ‘Government Authority’ as defined under clause 2(s) of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 for the period 2014-15 to 2016-17. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the demand, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the works carried out by the Appellant would qualify under ‘Planning for economic and social development’ as defended under 12th Schedule to Article 243W of the Constitution of India. The scope of this Entry is wide enough to cover the tube well energization work undertaken by the Appellant. Thus, we hold that the activities undertaken by the Appellant are covered within the ambit of the works assigned under Article 243W of the Constitution to be carried out by the Municipalities. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant are eligible for the exemption provided under Notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
Held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts is untenable. Accordingly, we hold that the department has not brought in any evidence to substantiate the allegation of suppression of fact with an intention to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, we hold that the demands confirmed in the impugned order are not sustainable on the ground of limitation also.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
