V.G. ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal and stay application are directed against the Order -in -Original No. 70/KLG(70)COMMR/RGD/11 -12, dated 30 -3 -2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Raigad. The appellant, M/s. V.G. Enterprises, undertook a bundle of services such as cleaning services, commercial construction services, manpower recruitment and supply services, repair and maintenance services, erection, commissioning and installation services and supply of tangible goods for use services during April, 2005 to Nov., 2008. However, they did not get themselves registered with the Service Tax department nor they discharge the Service Tax liability. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 19 -10 -2010 was issued to the appellant proposing to classify the services rendered by them under the various categories mentioned above demanding Service Tax of Rs. 95,37,908/ - along with interest thereon and also proposing to impose penalties. However, during the investigation stage, the appellant worked out the liability and paid a sum of Rs. 34,41,601/ - towards Service Tax. The notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order and demand was confirmed along with interest and by imposing penalties. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case Service Tax demands have been confirmed without taking into account the pleadings of the appellant at the time of investigation as also before the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that in respect of the fabrication of tanks at site, the activity amounts to manufacture, therefore, they are not liable to pay Service Tax in respect of the same. It is also contended that they have supplied various tangible goods for use and Service Tax liability on this activity came in the tax net w.e.f. 16 -05 -2008. Similarly, in a number of services, the Service Tax demands have been confirmed for the services prior to the inception of the levy. Therefore, the impugned order confirming demand is not sustainable in law and hence, he pleads for grant of stay.