Munna Construction Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata set aside the Service Tax demand of Rs.2,60,03,775/- confirmed against M/s. Munna Construction for the period 2006-07 to 2011-12. The demand arose from differences between taxable values declared in ST-3 Returns and receipts reflected in Form 26AS and the Profit & Loss Account. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invokable since the appellant had been registered with the Service Tax Department since 2006, had been filing returns and the demand was based on information available from the appellant’s balance sheet, Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS. The Tribunal also held that the appellant was eligible for 33% abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. dated 01.03.2006 because the construction and fabrication services were rendered along with supply of materials and consumables. For the normal limitation period, the Tribunal found that the Service Tax payable after the 33% abatement was Rs.22,82,336/-, whereas the appellant had already paid Rs.33,92,433/-. Accordingly, no additional Service Tax was payable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
Facts of the Case
M/s. Munna Construction was engaged in providing taxable services under the category of commercial or industrial construction service as defined under Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
