Naveen Kumar Vs Principal Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Delhi)
Summary: The appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. RPR/EXCUS/000/COM/CEX/60/2019 dated 27.02.2020, passed after de novo adjudication pursuant to the Tribunal’s earlier Final Order No. 51738/2018 dated 07.05.2018. Shri Naveen Kumar had obtained service tax registration on 15.09.2009 for construction services in respect of commercial or industrial buildings and civil structures, maintenance or repair services, and manpower recruitment agency services. The dispute concerns taxable services supplied to M/s. HSCL during Financial Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 up to September 2009, and subsequent service tax collected but not deposited for 2009-10 and 2010-11.
The Department alleged that the appellant had not discharged service tax on the gross value received, referring to Section 67 and, for the subsequent collected amounts, Rule 6. Show Cause Notice No. 15-309/2012 dated 18/19.10.2012 proposed recovery of Rs.86,52,256/- with interest and penalties. The first adjudication confirmed the proposals by Order-in-Original No. 01/2014 dated 27.01.2014. In the earlier appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo adjudication after verification of the appellant’s claim that tax had already been paid by the main contractor, M/s. HSCL. The fresh Order-in-Original No. 60/2019 dated 27.02.2020 again confirmed the demand.
Before the present Tribunal, the appellant contended that the lower authorities could not disregard or exceed the remand directions. Reliance was placed on Nizam Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam and Raj Kumar Mundra Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The appellant also argued that the main contractor had already paid the service tax, relying on Evergreen Suppliers, Urvi Construction and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Indore Vs. Shivhare Roadlines. On limitation, reliance was placed on Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik and In Re: Shree Datta SSK Ltd. The appellant further challenged interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, relying on Pawnar Satellite, Hindustan Steel and Pratibha Processors Vs. Union of India.
