M.S. ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUT of total confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 2,38,77,104/ -, the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 91,20,091/ -. By treating the same as sufficient for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, we dispense with the condition of pre -deposit of balance amount of service tax and entire amount of interest and penalty imposed upon them. Further, as we find that the impugned order of the Commissioner relates to the various basic issues, which do not stand considered by him in a proper manner, we proceed to decide the appeal itself. As per facts on record the appellant is engaged in providing construction services at Noida as also at various other places located in Maharashtra. They entered into a contract with M/s. Jaypee Greens for providing their services for construction of residential complex. They got themselves registered with the Service Tax Department for providing the said services. The demand in the present case relates to service tax in respect of the construction services provided by the appellant at Noida as also at other places at Mumbai, Pune, Gurgaon, New Delhi etc. As such, we note that the demand in the present appeal relates to the construction activities carried out by the appellant at 12 13 different places.

(2.) IT is seen that the appellant before the Commissioner strongly raised objection about his jurisdiction to decide the service tax in respect of the other construction services provided at different places i.e. at Pune, Mumbai, New Delhi etc. and submitted that inasmuch as the place of service provider does not fall under the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Noida, the confirmation of demand for service tax in respect of such services would not be in accordance with law. However, the Commissioner dealt with the said plea of the appellant and arrived at a finding that the registration granted at Noida has to be considered as Centralised registration and the appellant has to be held as having provided services from the said registered office. Accordingly, he rejected the appellants plea about the jurisdiction.

(3.) FURTHER , it is the appellant grievances that though in their defence reply, they have raised number of pleas but the Commissioner has merely reproduced the allegation made in the show cause notice and has observed that he agrees with the same. He has not dealt with the various submissions made by the party, in their defence reply.