Case Law Details
Senthil Engineering Works Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation invoked as appellant suppressed provision of service falling under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation’ service with intention to evade payment of tax.
Facts- During the audit of accounts of M/s. Bharathi Constructions, Erode by the officers attached to Salem Commissionerate in November 2008, it was noticed that the appellants had carried out erection and installation related work to the tune of Rs.34,96,200/- and no service tax had been paid by the appellants. It was ascertained from the records that the appellants were liable to pay Rs.4,79,603/- towards service tax for the period 2009 – 10.
On the above basis, Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 22/02/1012 was issued to the appellants. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the proposals for demand of Rs.4,79,603/- u/s. 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest, being the service tax liability for the services rendered by them under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation’ u/s. 65 (39a) of the Finance Act 1994, for the period 2009 – 10. Penalties were also imposed. Hence the appellant is before us in appeal.
Conclusion- The activity of skill and labour provided by the appellant is hence a service covered by the definition of erection, commissioning of structures as per section I05(39a)(i). The appellant has also not referred to any judgment where activities of a similar nature were held to be the manufacture of a factory shed. In fact, the appellant’s plea was that their activities are of ‘repair’ which is far removed from their claim of manufacture of goods.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
